CALLED DAWKIN'S BLUFF!

Post Reply New Topic

Isn't the matter of uncertainty one of not knowing where the electron is in the first place, you know the heisenberg uncertainty principle where we can either know the direction or the momentum but not both? Perhaps you can point me specifically to what you are speaking of.

If truth is subjective, it has defined itself out of existence.

There's no need for a term like "truth" if everyone's contradictory convictions are equally valid and real.



In my subjective experience, the evidence stacks up overwhelmingly toward the contrary.



Oh, I think it's a bit like stumbling upon a bunch of cardinals discussing whether or not sacred tradition supports the theory of limbo of infants and telling them, "Hey, that's all a bunch of worthless speculation because God doesn't exist anyhow." That may be true and it's certainly relevant--technically--but it's a bit outside the scope of the discussion.

Then again, this thread started out as a bad joke before we ever got on the present subject. And we do like to meander, even though it is uncomfortably disorganized. So carry on.



Objective reality itself would not be merely a consensus of models.

But our idea of it would be.

I still don't see how debate is possible, assuming nothing is "real". How could logic, information, and reason--the foundations of proper debate--exist with any relevancy against such a chaotic backdrop? Explain.



No. Not in the classical sense of the word. Which is the best, as other senses devalue the meaning of it.



It's only natural to use terms that fit the tangible, visual nature of the environment in which we are living.

And I would argue that the standards of the empiricist are more in accordance with what we see around us than the standards of the religious man. In that way, one could say they are more rigorous.



I like to think that if it were subjective, I'd get my way more often.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teach ... atoms.html

Gives a nice taste of the issue.
Nothing to do with uncertainty.

No more so than saying that knowledge is faith.
These are NOT the intuitive meanings for either
word. But, those intuitive meanings seem to have
NO meaning.


No no. Subjective truth may have NOTHING
to do with one's convictions or perceptions.
It's every bit as separated from us as is
any objective truth. And, it's not to say that
there is not some alignment between subjective
realities. Indeed, the objective theory is merely
a subset of the subjective, which claims that all
of these are indeed one.



So you are a blind person making up color?


I don't think that's a good analogy, for what I'm looking at
would actually pertain to the NATURE of God, rather than merely
whether he is relevant. Indeed, it seems preposterous that God
would be so limited, as to be confined within objective reality. Not
a worthy opponent at all.




Not "nothing is real" but "everything is real".



They all do - in contradiction to one another.
Far more chaotic than you portray.



But the classical sense is meaningless,
which we agreed upon, when you claim
that all knowledge is faith. Once you give
that, it's merely a matter of very strong
belief, no? And what better to call faith?



The earth doesn't appear to move.




Did anyone say BENEVOLENT?

How about you believe you absolutely know I don't know God, and run along and be happy in that belief?

I'm not sure that we can claim to know (as in universally prove beyond a shadow of a doubt) anything at all, even if we have some perception of it! I guess it all depends on your definition of the word know which has always been and still is an ambiguous word.

Actually a lot to do with uncertainty given the use of the term probability. Doesn't state anything dealing with the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle.

I didn't mean that knowledge itself is faith.

I simply meant that what we consider knowledge has some element of uncertainty to it. Varying levels.



I knew you'd say that.

Honestly I find I'm not exceedingly motivated at the moment to delve into something at once so mind-blowing and so unappealing. I mean, that's a lot of mental energy to spend contemplating a conclusion that clouds matters further rather than rewards. But that's life, and I know I'll get around to it.



Yes, but I didn't think we were talking about that.



Agreed.

But what isn't preposterous?



Yes, yes. Bend the spoon already.



Says who?



I think I failed to communicate properly what I mean. I don't agree that the classical sense is meaningless.




In our everyday experience? Sure it does. There are a number of signs. Just because the ancients couldn't read those signs, doesn't mean that their old models were made correct simply by virtue of being believed.



I doubt a benevolent universe would let us have our way with it anyhow.

Pity. Thought you were finally coming around to
understanding.


Including that of one's own existence?
If so, how can one assign probabilities to
these things? Doesn't it all seem impossible
at every point?

Consider a dartboard. Infinitely many spaces.
The chance of the dart hitting any one is nil,
but, nonetheless the dart is in ONE of the spaces.
How? Why not all?




Crap. I'm getting predictable. I suppose I'll
have to come up with a new reality.


Sometimes one must journey into the
unknown to make it to where one belongs.

Then again, maybe I'm just blundering about
lost. No biggie either way.


Nothing. But I can't seem to will myself to
believe that.


I did. Ice cream.



Sez me. This fits together. Doesn't mean that it is,
but gives it more standing than most models, in my
mind.



But we can never know that we know, under it.
Which seems disturbing.



It just has to be coaxed.
It likes to please.

But there is always some chance that any dart thrown at a dartboard will hit a particular spot on that board. Please explain why you'd say there is no chance - I don't understand that reasoning.

You are all trying very hard to analyse Ragtime's beliefs.

Why bother ? They are not very interesting; instead of coming up with something himself he has just copied the 'beliefs' of some club. Yawn !

'I am a robot please program me with beliefs !'

Infinitely many spaces, all equally
probably, i.e. each has probability
zero.

Yet the dart is in ONE of them.

That's not quite true. The probability is 1-to-infinity.

Those are the odds.
NOT the probability.

these fan-fics get pretty perverted.

no. his point is more "there is no proof so therefore there is no god." so he's yet to be defeated. god has yet to be proven in any capacity rather less the christian capacity.





i'll translate what you just said into real people's...what you're saying is you have no idea at all but you believe strongly and that is more than enough proof for you.

you then seek to instill others with the same belief and accepting of a belief as fact rather than just a personal believe that can neither be proven or disproven.


you think dawkins is wrong but you can't prove it. he thinks your wrong and he has more evidence on his side (the blatant lacking of anything god related in the world other than stories).