Obviously you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about MY perception, but that seems to be contrary to your philosophy. And, that statement is not consistent with MY faith.
Printable View
Obviously you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about MY perception, but that seems to be contrary to your philosophy. And, that statement is not consistent with MY faith.
Just because a computer can play chess doesn't mean it can think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
When will a computer successfully complete a Turning test? Certainly not in my or your lifetime. Even then, it will not be able to think "outside" the box.
I think your definition of faith is greatly skewedQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Can't disprove a negativeQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
No, but there is more than just a few human witnesses to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3WVP...elated&search=Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
but you've seen other things give birth, or at the very least, you can deduce from the fact that there are in fact newborn polar bears that stay in proximity to other polar bears, etc., that it is probable that the birth of a polar bear is similar to other mammals.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
No, but you can measure how fast sound takes to move from one location to another, and knowing that jets fly fast, you can readily admit that it is at least possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Again, check your definitions. At the very least, we are talking about a matter of scale here. There is certainly a clear difference between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Heck no, I'm a scientist... :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Other philosophies are seriously flawed, and I'd be more than happy to articulate finer points. Yes, you would have to be operating with a flawed sense of reality to think otherwise, Johnny. It is THAT obvious.
Again, do you have any direct sensory evidence that would lead you to believe that this transcending into the heavens is possible? So you're not getting knowledge of this by induction. And can you deduce from any of your experiences, or from what you've seen, that this is a likely phenomena (like the polar bear example or the sound barrier example, for example)? Nope... not knowledge by deduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Speaking of, I think that deductive reasoning effectively illustrates the ability of the mind to handle a much wider body of knowledge than you give it credit for. I know I use deductive reasoning a LOT in my work, as I'm always at the "cutting edge." But you see, you can solve problems if you correctly contextualize what you do know, and then deduce from that other stuff.
Basically, your "knowledge" in God is because someone else said so, and because it feels gooey inside to think so, and because you've already invested so much of yourself into it that it CAN'T be wrong.
If you are not going to propose any specific criticism or alternative view, stating that "great" philosophers disagree is pointless. Philosophy is not evaluated by popularity, but by the quality of the ideas themselves. There is no quality that makes someone qualified to be a philosopher except the ability to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I've been over this a million times, but I guess you didn't pay much attention to it because you didn't write it. Neither one of you has provided a significant dispute to a prime mover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Perhaps I should bow out as you two are greater philosophers than Aristotle, Plato, and CS Lewis.
Johnny, I've read WAY more philosophy than you've even heard of (and I'm certainly not a philosopher). Every other philosophy I've read has fundamental flaws. I might disagree with some value choices that Rand made, but otherwise, she does happen to be right most of the time. Doesn't mean I'd support her thought when I thought it was wrong. But you're really missing the point. There is no argument that there are multiple right answers. That is WRONG.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I'm sure there are scientists that carry biases into the labs. The ones I associate with (the ones I consider to have integrity) do not. FWIW, in my experience the most interesting scientific achievements usually come as a result of unexpeted results. But this is also neither here nor there.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Johnny, stop throwing depth charges. We're not exactly a moving target here.
Probably not too far off (I assume you mean the "Turing test"). You are the one thinking inside the box. Neural networks and bayesian networks are very much outside the box.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I'd hope I'm a better philosopher than Plato... He was WAY off base.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Aristotle is to be commended simply for getting rid of so much Platonic thought. But he was certainly wrong in some areas.
Johnny - we destroyed the prime mover argument. No one ever responded to the flaws we pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
OK, then what are the answers to the arguments I gave?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
1) it assumes that the starting point is a state of rest. There is no basis for that assumption, in which case, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that moving objects could initiate movements in other objects via collisions. Consider Newton's first law for a justification. And I should point out that both Newton and Galileo said it right when they identified the Aristotilean flaw in assuming a state of rest.
2) it assumes still objects can't move other still objects. This fails the gravitational test. Objects can exert forces (gravitational, magnetic) on other objects even when not in direct contact or when in a fixed position. Therefore, even if you assume that the starting point of existence is a state of rest, there is no need for a higher power to explain the movements you want to explain.
3) The primacy of existence directly answers the idea that consciousness could exist before existence.
To make you understand how that relates, Johnny, the "prime mover" argument assumes that thigns weren't moving to begin (they were at rest). I'm saying that is not only an arbitrary judgement (there is no reason why things couldn't begin in a state of motion, as explained in point 1), it is wrong that a prime mover is necessary to explain motion even if one takes this as an acceptable starting point (universal law of gravitation, point 2).
Also, please address my critique of the assumption of "creation." They are enumerated and reproduced below for your convenience.
Just because something exists, doesn't mean that it was "created." Man and nature can shape materials to produce new objects of existence. But there is no reason that existence itself had to be created. In fact there are reasons that it couldn't have been.
(1) The laws of conservation of mass/energy tells us that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, no creation of existence (which includes mass and energy)
(2) It would be philosophically impossible for a consciousness to precede existence. A consciousness must be aware of SOMETHING - and it cannot only be aware of itself. For a consciousness to be aware of itself it must first recongize some object of existence, then it can recognize its "recognition" of the object (thus recognizing its consciousness).
(3) To create existence one must have knowledge of the objects one is creating. If existence did not precede consciousness, one would not have knowledge of anything to create existence with.
(4) Assuming that it would be possible to overcome the aforementioned problems with the creation of existence, it would still be arbitrary, at best, to state that some deity created existence.
The "prime mover" are the entities themselves, that is, the cause of actions are entities.
I think Johnny might still be waiting for us to disprove this prime mover... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I appreciate you signing the red dot, but I can't figure out the disconnect. I promise not to red dot you in return for glossing over and mischaracterizing my arguments. Maybe this argument got pushed over by some series of unrelated posts, but I am not trying to avoid the issue. I would love for this issue to be fleshed out more.
If you can't answer our arguments to the prime mover discussion, does that mean that your understanding of the necessity of having a God to create existence has changed, or will you still hold it true against evidence that you know you cannot refute that would lead you not to believe in the notion? If not, that means that your faith is inconsistent with your reality (which is what the faith we are criticizing always results in). If so, where then is your faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
When have you ever, via induction or deduction, formed a valid concept on the ability of Christ to transcend into the heavens? Is that not counter to what you have perceived, in terms of 1) gravity as seen on earth 2) the dead coming back to life after an extended time as deceased 3) your observations of space flights, which suggest that the "heavens" are not what you get to if you get out of the atmosphere?