Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I had the time to read the rest.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The way I read it, you were the one insisting that I must be certain of the non-existence of Azonier, or else I can't claim that I have a nose. Not exactly, because you do not claim to be CERTAIN of your nose, nor is it a matter of choice for you ("you must").
In the moment you say that you have a nose, you are saying that Azonier does not exist. As simple as this, and you recognized it already. It is not like you have a choice. You are logically implying it, no matter if you want it or not. And you are doing it with the same security (attention here: "the same as") you have as when you say that you have a nose. Not more, nor less.
So - you say that Azonier does not exist. But you do not do the same with God. Why? There is no difference. None you can rationally justify.
How do you know I don't do the same with God?
You're saying that if I state positively that I have a nose, it implies that Azonier does not exist. I do not even have to say specifically that "Azonier does not exist," all I have to say is that I have a nose.
And that's really all that I would say: "I have a nose." I would not express any confirmation or denial about the existence of Azonier, which is exactly what I do in regards to God. I neither believe nor disbelieve.
quote:
quote:
When I claim that I have a nose, I'm doing so from the assumption that what I see, observe, and perceive around me is the true, actual reality.
You have no reason to support that assumption if you cannot say that the "Azoniers" do not exist.
The point is, I don't have to say that Azoniers do not exist in order to operate under that assumption and get on with my life.
quote:
Therefore, you do. I am not saying "therefore, you have to do it". Again: you actually simply do it. In the moment you say "I have a nose", you say "Azonier does not exist". As simple as this, no choice involved.
If you're saying that "I have a nose" automatically means that "Azonier doesn't exist," what statement like that would be analogous in relation to the existence or non-existence of God?
quote:
quote:
"2+2=4" is pretty basic. It's a statement based on observable reality and what we define as "two" and "four." The words and symbols we use are just things that human beings made up and passed down through the ages.
As long as nobody proves us otherwise, and when you do this, you deny the existence of the "Azoniers" who would imply that 2+2 are not 4. If you did not do this, you could not conclude that 2+2=4 based on observable reality or anything else: If A and B lead both to C, C is no prove of A.
I think we can agree here, although I don't know of anyone who would try to prove that 2+2 are not 4. I've seen some people do little tricks like 2.49+2.49=4.98, which rounds off to 5, so they can say "2+2=5," but that's about it.
quote:
quote:
"There are 8 planets" would, again, be a statement based on observable reality and human ability to invent and construct telescopes and other advancements in the science of astronomy and optics. It's based on what we see, so if we see it, we know it's there.
As long as nobody proves us otherwise, and when you do this, you deny the existence of the "Azoniers" who would imply that there are no 8 planets. If you did not do this, you could not conclude that there are 8 planets based on observable reality or anything else.
Not sure if this is analogous, especially when you say "Azoniers" would imply that there are no 8 planets. In this context, it might be more comparable to say that the "Azoniers" would imply that there are 10 planets when only 8 can be proven by science.
In this sense, I would not deny the possible existence of other planets, even though I accept the existence of those already discovered by science.
quote:
quote:
It's the same with "I have a nose," so if I can see it and feel it, then I know it's there.
As long as nobody proves us otherwise, and when you do this, you deny the existence of the "Azoniers" who would imply that you have no nose. If you did not do this, you could not conclude that you have a nose based on your feelings or anything else (again: Azoner would imply the same feelings but you would have no nose, so nose = A; Azonier = B, your perceptions = C, and if A and B lead to C, C cannot be used as proof of A as long as you do not discard B).
Well, the thing is, it's not unlike the question of whether or not we live in a "Matrix" where our reality is not really our reality. "There is no spoon." That sort of thing. I can't prove that we don't live in a Matrix, but I just assume that we don't. Just as I assume that I have a nose.
Beyond that, I don't feel the need to make any conclusions or discard anything. While saying "I have a nose" may have the same practical effect as denying the existence of Azonier, it's not exactly the same thing.
quote:
quote:
So, the bottom line for me is that, if I can see it, then I know it's there.
This is a stupid sentence, sorry. You see aliens in films. That means that they exist? No.
Well, no, I see puppets and human actors dressed up to play aliens in films. I've never seen any actual aliens, to the best of my recollection. Does that mean that aliens don't exist? Well, I don't know.
quote:
It is more complex as this. It is: "as long as I can rationally decude the existence of it, it is there". And you can deduce its existence only as long as nobody proves you otherwise. And by doing this, you deny the existence of the Azoniers which would imply that it is not there.
And what can you use to deny this existence, to deny C, which is your support to say A based on C? Occam's Razor. Or something else, but you haven't shown anything yet.
I agree that it's more complex, especially when noting the difference between proving the existence of something versus proving non-existence.
But I don't think this is necessarily contrary to Occam's Razor. If the simplest explanation is better, then maybe something can be said for no explanation at all. "I have a nose." What else is there to explain? There's no need for me, personally, to deny the existence of Azonier. If someone else came forward and claimed that there was such a thing as Azonier and that I didn't have a nose, then I would ask them to prove it. I wouldn't feel any obligation to prove or disprove anything. All I would say is, "I have a nose." That's all I really could say.
It's no different with me in regards to God. I accept the reality as I perceive it by my senses, observations, and experiences, but I make no conclusions regarding the existence or non-existence of God, regardless of whatever form or interpretation of "God" one uses. I don't see that there's any particular need to make a claim in this area one way or the other, since it goes beyond the realm of what we see and perceive in our reality. Sure, I like to talk about it because I find it interesting, but it's more in the realm of "maybe" and "what if." I like to consider the "what if" questions of history, too, but admittedly, it's all speculation and conjecture.
quote:
quote:
I'm not going to claim to know about something I can't see.
You do it constantly, as I have explained many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times to you already. And once again here.
Well, I guess we're at an impasse then. I suppose we can just agree to disagree. As for the game, I suppose we could try it again at some later date, but I'd like to see an example of a game brought to a successful conclusion, if there is any. I don't really care who wins or loses, but I'd like to see an example where there actually is a winner. Just so I can see what it looks like.
|
RE: Agnosticism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread