RE: Trying (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 8:13:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Spanish, I'm pointing out that your argument contains a logical fallacy. An example of this problem that I would have expected you to have seen before is in the god of the gaps argument.
I am sorry but I haven't seen any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
With that in mind take a look at your argument again:
You point out that unless we assume (Occam's Razor is valid to use that way) we don't have an answer for some question. However, that does not demonstrate that it's valid for us to assume (Occam's Razor is valid to use that way).
True. Again: the premise #278 {A}4 does not alone demonstrate  #278 {A}5, but together with the premise #278 {A}1, this is indeed the conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Let me see...
1. We want to follow rules, which allow us to say that we have a nose (for example).
2. Let us define Unoser as a being whose existence implies, that we have no nose, and what our perceptions on the matter are misleading, and Unoser is not detectable in any rational way.
3(2). If Unoser exists, we have no nose.
4. There is only one rational way to affirm that Unoser does not exist: Occam's Razor.
5(1,4). We must include Occam's Razor in the set of rules we follow to decide things.
6. There is no evidence for God either.
7(5,6). We must conclude that there is no God.


And again:
1. We want to archive X.
2. Y is the only way to archive X.
3(1,2). We must use Y.

(2) does not demonstrate (3) alone. But it does, combined with (1).

Of course this is no demonstration that Y is an absolute truth (only that we have to use it). Nobody can demonstrate the basic rules of logic and reason (because if somebody could, the underlying rules used for such demonstration would be the basic rules, and not the conclusions derived using them). I also do not pretend that anything I say is an absolute truth. But within the range of reason and rational thought, I have proved that we must use Occam's Razor if we want to assert that we have a nose; and that using it does not lead to Solipsism, and it does lead to positive Atheism. Which is BTW a neat way to summarize what I have said all along, so I repeat it:

quote:

quote:

quote:

We must use Occam's Razor(1) to affirm that we have a nose(2).
Using it does not lead to Solipism(3).
It leads to see the world of science and reason.
And it leads to positive Atheism.


(1) The underlying principle, which is common to Occam's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony, the Skeptical Principle and the Preponderance of the Negation. The principle that, when confronted to different explanations of the same amount of data, we have to consider truth, until proven otherwise, the one which more efficiently reduces the amount of unexplained data.
(2) Or any other assert about the universe around us.
(3) As Solipism alone does not explain a shit. For every perception we have, it says that it is a hallucination, but it does not say a word  about why we have that concrete hallucination and not any other one.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 8:15:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
P.S. You may want to look up the word ditto. It doesn't seem to make sense the way your using it.
Ok, I did.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ditto

dit·to  (d[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/image]t[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image][image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif[/image])n. pl. dit·tos 1. The same as stated above or before.

ditto [ˈdɪtəʊ]n pl -tos1. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) the aforementioned; the above; the same. Used in accounts, lists, etc., to avoid repetition (...)

I think that it does make sense the way I use it.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 12:07:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
1. We want to archive X.
2. Y is the only way to archive X.
3(1,2). We must use Y.

(2) does not demonstrate (3) alone. But it does, combined with (1).

Of course this is no demonstration that Y is an absolute truth (only that we have to use it).

Not only isn't it a demonstration that Y is an absolute truth, it isn't a demonstration that Y is any kind of truth or has any validity. It's only a demonstration of why you find it desirable to use Y.

If X = the first cause of the universe and Y = God

1. We want to know the first cause of the universe.
2. God is the only way to know the first cause of the universe.

I'd like to point out that you never proved that using Occam's Razor as you do was the only way to know that you have a nose. You asserted it and demanded that other posters demonstrate another method and then dismissed the other methods that posters came up with. Similarly this is where the theist will assert that using God is the only way to know the first cause of the universe and dismiss other possibilities that atheists come up with.

3(1,2). We must use God.

(2) does not demonstrate (3) alone. But it does, combined with (1).

So as you can see the argument does not in any way demonstrate or prove that God caused the universe or that God exists, all it does is show a reason why theists desire that God exists.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 2:23:41 PM)

quote:

(1) The underlying principle, which is common to Occam's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony, the Skeptical Principle and the Preponderance of the Negation. The principle that, when confronted to different explanations of the same amount of data, we have to consider truth, until proven otherwise, the one which more efficiently reduces the amount of unexplained data.


Not even close.



Kirata -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 2:33:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Not even close.

You missed a memo:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

Can you find a source that says Occam's Razor makes proofs because everything I've learned about it tells me that it doesn't work that way. The rest of us seem to be in unanimous agreement about that.

Maybe I could but I really do not care much. If it is not a proof, you cannot say that you have a nose. So, it is a proof. I have defended that myself and I have no need to find any other authority.

K.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 2:40:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Not even close.

You missed a memo:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

Can you find a source that says Occam's Razor makes proofs because everything I've learned about it tells me that it doesn't work that way. The rest of us seem to be in unanimous agreement about that.

Maybe I could but I really do not care much. If it is not a proof, you cannot say that you have a nose. So, it is a proof. I have defended that myself and I have no need to find any other authority.

K.





His posts remind me of Al Kelly

1:07 if you dont have time for the whole thing



GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/12/2011 7:12:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Keep in mind that my only real issue is with positive atheism which takes the extra (and unnecessary) step of coming out and saying "there is no God." That just complicates the overall debate far more than is really necessary (especially if the motive is to counter "Christian nationalism," as you call it).

I think that strict adherence to the principle of the Separation of Church and State would deal with most of the practical issues involved, at least as far as religionists imposing their will on others. That's a perfectly valid political and constitutional issue, one that I support. Even many religionists support it as much for their own protection as anything else (as well as the tax exemptions they enjoy). Smaller religions also have an interest in being protected from the larger religions which might tend to impose their will on others, so the Separation of Church and State protects religious interests as well as secular interests.


I apologize for not responding to you on this sooner, I've been getting pretty burned out on trying to explain a positive atheist position to you.

I don't think that taking the extra step of saying "there is no God" is unnecessary for positive atheists. They are saying that because it's their position. What I was trying to point out is that they are saying their position so publicly and so frequently because of pressure from theists. If you look at aunicornists on the other hand, well most people are aunicornists and if you were to ask them if unicorns are real they would inform you that no unicorns are not. However, there are no aunicornist talk shows or aunicornist billboard campaigns or lawsuits to get aunicornists equal public space because there isn't a significant pressure from unicornists for the rest of us to believe.

As for separation of church and state I'm glad that we are on the same page. I very much respect peoples right to believe even when I have little or no respect for their beliefs.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 7:23:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ditto

dit·to  (d[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/image]t[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image][image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif[/image])n. pl. dit·tos 1. The same as stated above or before.

ditto [ˈdɪtəʊ]n pl -tos1. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) the aforementioned; the above; the same. Used in accounts, lists, etc., to avoid repetition (...)

I think that it does make sense the way I use it.


*Sigh*

Unfortunately it seems that the dictionary wasn't enough. You confused at least three of us with your use of the word.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 8:45:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Unfortunately it seems that the dictionary wasn't enough. You confused at least three of us with your use of the word.
Maybe it was the three of you the ones who should look more often at the dictionary.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Not only isn't it a demonstration that Y is an absolute truth, it isn't a demonstration that Y is any kind of truth or has any validity.
So what? If you do NOT want to have a knowledge system which allows you to state that you have a nose, then forget it. But if you do, accept Occam's Razor. And then, be positive Atheist. 'nuff said.
quote:

you never proved that using Occam's Razor as you do was the only way to know that you have a nose
I have. Using Occam's Razor (ironically?) there is none until somebody shows me one [:)].
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
1. We want to know the first cause of the universe.
2. God is the only way to know the first cause of the universe.
3(1,2). We must use God.

I understand you are making an analogy. To object an analogy I have to show relevant differences. Here they are:

Objection A: I do not want (1). I do not know if the universe has a "first cause", so I will not say that I want to know it. Therefore, the analogy is false.

In opposition, anybody I have spoken with here does say that they have a nose.

Objection B: God does not exist, therefore it cannot be accepted as first cause of the universe. This objection uses what I already know (that God does not exist) to directly prove that #363(2) is false.

In opposition, nobody has even (AFAIK) proved that #278{A}(2) is false.

Objection C: God is not the only way to establish a first cause of the universe. It is enough to establish the hypothesis that, if a first cause of the universe exists, it is not a person(1). This hypothesis is simpler as the one, that it is, and therefore by Occam's Razor, it must be taken as truth unless proven otherwise. This disproves that God is the only way (or even a way at all) to establish a first cause of the universe (with the data we have right now, that is, of course, as always).

Objection D: I have indeed proved that Occam's Razor is the only way to prove that we have a nose. See above. And do not say that it is a circular proof, it is not - it is not a demonstration of Occam's Razor (I repeat that I would not try to do that, the principles or reason are not principles if they can be demonstrated), but a demonstration that we need Occam's Razor to do something. It does not use this fact on it, so it is not circular.

In opposition, the hypothesis that Occam's Razor is false cannot be disproved using Occam's Razor by obvious reasons, and it cannot be disproved using any other of the rules of reasoning (AFAIK, as always).

Please not that the objections are mutually independent. You have to refute all, and not only one, to make the analogy valid again. If you attempt to object only one I will simply wait until you attempt to object all until I answer, ok?

Best regards.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 2:25:41 AM)

PLEASE IGNORE THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE
I have made some typos and I would to change my tone too.

Hello, GotSteel,

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Unfortunately it seems that the dictionary wasn't enough. You confused at least three of us with your use of the word.
Well, or maybe it is the three of you who should look more often at the dictionary [:)]. Anyway, I will try to use some other expression from now on. Thanks.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Not only isn't it a demonstration that Y is an absolute truth, it isn't a demonstration that Y is any kind of truth or has any validity.
It does not pretend to be one, it is only a demonstration of 3, not of Y.
Please remember that I consider the Parsimony(1) one of the principles of rational thought. Principles, not conclusions. They are not provable. Any proof would be circular. You accept the knowledge system "reason" or you don't. You can decide to accept Illumination, Astrology of whatever you want instead.
However, it is a proof that if you want to be rational and you want to be able to say "I have a nose", then you need Occam's Razor. And if you use Occam's Razor, it leads you to positive Atheism.
quote:

you never proved that using Occam's Razor as you do was the only way to know that you have a nose
Even if not explicitly, I have. Using Occam's Razor, ironically, there is none until somebody shows me one [:)]. And no, this is not circular, because (again): I am not trying to prove Occam's Razor. No principle of reason can be proved. I am proving that we need Occam's Razor for something. This is a different subject matter.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
1. We want to know the first cause of the universe.
2. God is the only way to know the first cause of the universe.
3(1,2). We must use God.

I understand that you are making an analogy: If your situation is similar to mine, I have to accept that we must "use" God (its existence, that is) or reject that my reasoning is correct. I understand. To object an analogy I have to show relevant differences between both situations. Here I go:

Objection A: I do not want (1).

I do not know if the universe has a "first cause", so I will not say that "I want to know it". Therefore, the analogy is false. This is not any kind of trick: I think that the thought that the universe has to have a fundamental first cause is one of the errors many theists did when they analyzed the problem of God. The question was biased (like "Why did you kill your mother!?" when you did not). The question implies a supposition which is far from proved.

In opposition, anybody I have spoken with here does say that they have a nose, so they use a knowledge system which implies this.

Objection B: God does not exist, therefore It cannot be accepted as first cause of the universe.

Using what I already know, I can prove directly that your #363(2) is false. How do you I know this? By three different ways. Please realise that nobody has asked me in this forum, how do I prove that God does not exist (even if I have suggested them to ask). Therefore, you most probably do not know how I do it. You can also ask. You know quite much of one of three mutually independent demonstrations, but maybe you do not know completely even that one.

In this objection I simply use what I know. I know that (3) God does not exist. Therefore, #363(2) must be false.

In opposition, nobody has even (AFAIK) proved that #278{A}(2) is false.

Objection C: God is not the only way to establish a first cause of the universe.

Consider the hypothesis C1: "If there is a first cause of the universe, it is not a person(2)". This hypothesis includes less elements as "If there is a first cause of the universe, it is God" (#363(2)) because it includes less characteristics for the being. It inserts less information in the system and it explains at least the same amount of things (if not more). By Occam's Razor, I can then establish that C1 is true and #363(2) is false.

In opposition, nobody has proved (AFAIK) that #278{A}(2) is false. No, this is no copy/paste, I'm just hitting the same target twice to make sure it's dead [:D].

Please note that all objections are mutually independent. Even if any two are false, the other one is enough to render your analogy invalid. Therefore, you have to refute all, and not only one, to make the analogy valid again.

If you attempt to object only one I will simply wait for you to attempt to object all of them, ok? This way we stick to the one point and we do not start and endless discussion about anything I say.

Best regards.




(1) I use the expressions "Occam's Razor", "Principle of Parsimony", "Preponderancy of the Negation" and "Skeptical Principle" as equivalent in the context of such discussions, because what I am focused in is the fundamental rational principle, which is beneath them all.
(2) I consider valid any definition of God which includes as characteristics, that it has created the universe, and that it is a "person" in the sense of "someone" and not "something". Defining the laws of the universe as "God" (or money, or myself) is for me a cheap game with the words and renders the word meaningless. God is considered a "someone who created the universe" by 99,99% of the people who believe in It, and by at least 95% of the rest. Language is there to serve people, not to serve the crazy interests of some weird intellectuals.
(3) "I know that" equals "I consider proven rationally, as long as nobody proves me wrong, that....". I really hope that this note was superfluous, but... just in case...



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 8:27:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I understand that you are making an analogy: If your situation is similar to mine, I have to accept that we must "use" God (its existence, that is) or reject that my reasoning is correct. I understand. To object an analogy I have to show relevant differences between both situations. Here I go:

Here's the thing, your objections don't show how one proof is different from the other, they show how one proof is invalid. Now I understand that you've convinced yourself that your proof is valid so showing that the other proof is invalid would certainly be a relevant difference to you. The thing is I crafted the analogy from the position that both proofs are invalid and since you're an atheist I expect you to know the objections to god of the gaps arguments. My hope in using the analogy is that it will allow you to see that the same objections apply to your proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
(2) I consider valid any definition of God which includes as characteristics, that it has created the universe, and that it is a "person" in the sense of "someone" and not "something". Defining the laws of the universe as "God" (or money, or myself) is for me a cheap game with the words and renders the word meaningless. God is considered a "someone who created the universe" by 99,99% of the people who believe in It, and by at least 95% of the rest. Language is there to serve people, not to serve the crazy interests of some weird intellectuals.

Putting statistics out there without backing them up is the sort of thing that makes me twitch. However, having gotten that disclaimer out of the way, this is the sort of thing that I think you should have spent the thread talking about. Like I told you earlier, you've been way too hung up on this Occam's Razor thing, there's a much stronger case that you could have spent your time making to show that God does not exist.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 8:43:26 AM)

Objection A: "I do not want (1)."

Keep in mind that you were addressing agnostics with your proof. A group which is at the very least comfortable not knowing and might even revel in the (as tweak put it) virtue of uncertainty.

Objection B: "God does not exist, therefore It cannot be accepted as first cause of the universe."

You've come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Everyone and I mean everyone that you're talking to has come to the conclusion that Occam's Razor cannot be used the way you're using it. As such I'll make a similar statement: Occam's Razor isn't used that way, therefore It cannot be accepted as proof that we have noses."

Objection C: "God is not the only way to establish a first cause of the universe."

I pointed this one out as I was making the analogy:
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I'd like to point out that you never proved that using Occam's Razor as you do was the only way to know that you have a nose. You asserted it and demanded that other posters demonstrate another method and then dismissed the other methods that posters came up with. Similarly this is where the theist will assert that using God is the only way to know the first cause of the universe and dismiss other possibilities that atheists come up with.





SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 8:58:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Here's the thing, your objections don't show how one proof is different from the other, they show how one proof is invalid.
GotSteel, you are making absolutely no sense.

There are three differences between your reasoning and my reasoning.
Difference A:  I do not pretend your (1) while others do pretend  my (1)
Difference B:  I can disprove your (2) in one way while others cannot disprove my (2)
Difference C:  I can disprove your (2) in other way while others cannot disprove my (2)

These are three relevant differences, hence the analogy is invalid.
You can tell me that I am wrong in some point, that I do not disporve (2) or I do pretend (1), but you cannot come and tell me that they are not diferences or that they do not render the analogy invalid if they are.

I stop reading here, really. If you are not able to admit even that, any communication is useless. Really. Think about it again and let me know.



hardcybermaster -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 4:09:59 PM)

jesus tap dancing christ, is he still going on about this rubbish?



Politesub53 -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 4:11:39 PM)

I thought everyone would be on "hide" by now.



JanahX -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 4:12:25 PM)

seems so. He has a point dammit. Hes gonna make it. In maybe two years time .. he may well finish it.



hardcybermaster -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 4:15:46 PM)

maybe he has everyones noses on hide?



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 6:17:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I stop reading here, really. If you are not able to admit even that, any communication is useless. Really. Think about it again and let me know.

I wouldn't blame you for abandoning your proof at this point, it doesn't work there are better things that you could be spending your time writing about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
These are three relevant differences, hence the analogy is invalid.

First, it seems like you're claiming two differences (you just listed one twice).
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
You can tell me that I am wrong in some point, that I do not disporve (2) or I do pretend (1), but you cannot come and tell me that they are not diferences or that they do not render the analogy invalid if they are.

Second, I'm going to claim that your (2) has been disproven, that's why I've been trying to get you to do even a trivial amount of research. If instead of deciding that you are right without even doing basic fact checking you would have discovered multiple sources such as this http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor3.htm that explain why your step (2) fails.

Third, I'm not going to claim that your pretending, I suspect that you are considering how deeply unsatisfying an infinite regress is but there's no way for me to know. What I am going to claim is that there are others who do not pretend your (1). There are actually solipsists on this forum.

Fourth, your objections aren't valid, they are rationalizations. Your proof wasn't a proof to begin with, it was at best an appeal to desire and faulty even at doing that. Having gotten really committed to this position it's very normal that you'd rationalize but try and take a step back and look at this with fresh eyes. It isn't everyone here, Wikipedia and science tutorial websites that are all wrong, it really is just you. 



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/13/2011 8:40:37 PM)

GotSteel:

I proved what I said I proved. But before I enter into discussing anything else, I want a clear answer from you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Here's the thing, your objections don't show how one proof is different from the other


Withdraw this. As simple as that. Later you can tell me that my differences are not such, that I do not pretend (1) or not disprove (2), nor in B nor in C, and that I am therefore wrong and whatever you want. But withdraw this first. Clearly and simply.



GotSteel -> Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/13/2011 9:09:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Here's the thing, your objections don't show how one proof is different from the other

Withdraw this. As simple as that. Later you can tell me that my differences are not such, that I do not pretend (1) or not disprove (2), nor in B nor in C, and that I am therefore wrong and whatever you want. But withdraw this first. Clearly and simply.


When I wrote that you hadn't made any argument to differentiate the proofs, just pointed out the issues in the god of the gaps. Following my statement you raised objections to differentiate one proof from the other. Here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
There are three differences between your reasoning and my reasoning.
Difference A:  I do not pretend your (1) while others do pretend  my (1)
Difference B:  I can disprove your (2) in one way while others cannot disprove my (2)
Difference C:  I can disprove your (2) in other way while others cannot disprove my (2)


If that's what you're asking me to acknowledge then yes that's what happened.

On the other hand, If you're asking me to say that your objections show that one proof is different from the other, they can't actually do that because they fail.



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875