Isn’t the claim that the universe has static laws, and that for every cause there is an effect, a rather extraordinary claim in itself?
Where did you get these ideas which science (quite rightly) relies so strongly upon?
It couldn’t have been from any sort of scientific method, for surely then the whole of science would be a circular argument.
And it must not be common sense, for surely such a sense is quite uncommon. When one looks at the world as a whole one sees far too much flux and many seemingly random events. Indeed one’s own experience of action seems to be completely autonomous from any outside causation. The “illusion” of freewill still prevails even in those who do not believe it.
So where did this phenomenal idea that the precepts of science are in fact universal come from? It would have to come from the individual’s experience would it not? And likewise, it would be on equal footing with any other fundamental “truths” about the universe. Any apriori concepts in our mind are all on an equal footing, are they not? This means that the experience of knowing cause and effect to be true is just as valid as the experience of knowing a God to be true.
Lib, bless you also, but I would prefer this translation:
my bolding, but it is an important difference. Jesus and his followers are the Kingdom.
I could have just as easily said the True Church. It is in the world, but not of this world, and thus difficult to find. You could just go out into the desert and starve, and then come back and complain my experiment had poor parameters. I merely mean to point you in the right direction. Go where the people who also have nothing go – that is the best place to start. Since you will be there giving you money to the poor anyway, you’d might as well stick around for a while and learn the ropes.
Is potentiality not sufficient reason?
I like a nice cause and effect to my reason, but I think we are only quibbling here. If you have a logic system whose underlying axiom is “everything is true or false” you can’t conclude much from that.
Is it the neurological function, or something else which induces ramifications of the physical realm (I honestly, know of no other realm)?
You mean induces ramifications on the physical realm? Perhaps, the mind only needs to be in a certain state in order to induce such ramifications. It is certaintly not straight forward – it is like having a third eye you did not know about previously, but it takes almost like practice inorder to use it. But, because this state of mind requires humility a priori, you at least have to think it is not your mind that it doing it, but a higher power, though that is all very chicken and egg. (did that make any sense?).
4.Is this concept of an interaction between faith and quantum mechanics the vehicle through which you will attempt to refute the concept that faith is a neurological function?
See above. I don’t want to say “faith is a state of mind” lest I am completely misunderstood! For whatever reason, what Christianity defines as sin is exactly what causes our mind to not be in the correct state. Now we may want to extend this into a hope – as faith assures us some of what Christ said is true, we may want to hope the rest is true also – for there is no way I can see there is eternal life, which is hoped for, and yet no God, who is as yet unseen. There is no way to present proof though.
I’m not sure why you call it extraordinary. I observe this every day. Everytime I release a ball, it falls to the ground. I therefore believe that basing my actions on the assumption that gravity causes objects to fall is a useful guideline for building my store of knowledge. If one day the ball doesn’t fall to the ground when I release it, then I will change my assumptions.
Of course there are some events that are too complex to predict. For example, I cannot predict what the temperature on the lawn outside my front door will be one month from now. However, I can with reasonable accuracy predict what it will be tomorrow afternoon.
As I mentioned above, I can easily demonstrate to you the fact that when I release a ball it drops to the ground. I am willing to listen to anyone who wishes to show me how I can experience the presence of god (or a god. it doesn’t have to be the christian god, I’m not fussy.)
But you’re missing the crux of the matter. Why do you think that becasue it has happend before, no matter how many times it has happend before, that it will happen again?
Even more so, how do you create the links between your releasing of the ball and it droping to the ground?
You are allready fundemntaly assuming that there is such a thing as cause and effect, are you not?
I’ll be happy to do that, as soon as you show “me” how I can experience the feeling of asurity that any chained sequence of events are in fact related.
I suppose you could phrase it this way: it seems to me that this is a predictively powerful use of the events that I experience. If I am building, for example, a hot air balloon, it is useful for me to assume that when I drop a bag of sand the balloon will go higher, and when I release hot air, the balloon will go lower. Without making those assumptions I could not build my balloon.
You’ll show me yours if I’ll show you mine, eh?
I believe that Mill’s Causality guidelines are useful rules for determining the cause and effect relationship (taken from Philosophy of Science - Causality)
[ol]
[li]concomitant variation - if one phenomenon varies whenever another phenomenon varies in a particular manner, there is a cause and effect relationship;[/li][li]method of difference - if a phenomenon occurs in instance A, but not in instance B, and instances A and B are common in every circumstance except one, then that circumstance is part of either the effect or the cause;[/li][li]method of residues - remove from a phenomenon a part which is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue is the effect of the remaining antecedents;[/li][li]method of agreement - if two or more instances of a phenomenon have only one circumstance in common, that circumstance is the cause or effect of the given phenomenon.[/li][/ol]
Well, to be fair, it is impossible to demonstrate that if a ball has fallen every time you drop it, that it must do so and always will do so in the future. You can show that it did do so, and it does do so, but you cannot prove that it must. (This is, incidentally, a major schism between empiricists and rationalists; whether the “laws of nature” are prescriptive or descriptive, whether the ball must drop or whether it simply did drop.) Nor does cause and effect seem to hold inevitably true, and science supports this; science uses cause and effect as a premise when it is useful to do so, and does not when it is not (quantum physics, for example). You can in fact practice perfectly acceptable science without a rigid belief in cause and effect. You are asking Arnold for proof of something that is impossible to prove, and I don’t think Arnold is asking for knock-down absolute proof of God; just evidence similar to: “When I drop a ball it falls. When you drop a ball it falls. When anyone drops a ball, it falls. I theorize that a ball must fall when dropped.” Can you offer similar evidence for God?
What Gaudere said. It seems to me from what I read that several posters have empirical evidence that God exists. Well, I would like to experience that empirical evidence also. What form does it take, and how does one produce that state?
Again, though, what you are doing is using a fundemental thought (namely) that if somthing happend before, it will happen again. This fundemntal thought is a personal belief with no foundation outside yourself.
Assuming probablity1 to be more… effecient than probablity2 is somthing that is fundementaly true out of your mind where:
problity1(x occurs 20 times when y happens 20}
problity2(x occurs 3 times when y happens 20)
=] but where do such said rules arise from? =]
Hehe. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that your fundemntal idea of probablity/causality or what not is wrong. And I am esp. not affirming that God can be shown to exist in such a probablity/causality system.
What I am saying, however is that even our objective sense of looking at the world is still found in subjectivity. And likewise, and axioms that we each contain in our life have equal footing.
The man who has belief in God is just as valid in his belief as you are in yours at a base level. It is only once you demand that he use your own axioms (or he claims to use your own axioms) of belief that he can be shown to be wrong… but of course he can only be shown wrong under that system… If you really want to show him wrong, you have to take him out with his own axioms, somthing much harder to do.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that though… I admitdly don’t understand much of quantum physics (if somone could point me to a FAQ or some good books, I’d love it) But from what I do understand from the few college courses I took that glazed over it, scientists still aproach quantum mechanics assuming a cause and effect connection… it’s just that there has yet to be one. …but taking quantum physics aside, can you think of any other field of science that doesn’t assume there is a casusal relationship?
Well, quantum physics is the underlying fabric of every everything physical thing, and that’s not broad enough a branch of science for you? I’ve seen some economic laws that do not assume a traditional hardline cause and effect. I agree there is often an unspoken belief in cause and effect found throughout science, but it is not necessary to do science, just customary (IMHO). The belief in cause and effect is a metaphysical belief, and it has both empirical evidence and philosophical support; but of course you can never prove it. If you wish to convince Arnold of the existence of God, you should offer the same sort of evidence. Belief in imperceptible plaid bunnies that make the flowers bloom could also be a metaphysical belief, but it takes an extremely nonjudgmental philosphical sort to put imperceptible plaid bunnies on the same level as cause and effect. Even though our metaphysical beliefs may be unable to be proved, we still generally demand a certain level of evidence before they are believed, or even accepted as reasonable.
I accept as axiomatic that free will is the result of imperceptible blue faeries that live in my fridge. Do you accept this as just as valid as a belief in cause and effect? What I am trying to point out is that we generally demand some sort of support for axioms, and do not hold that positing any arbitrary thing is equally valid just because we consider it axiomatic. In the world of logic, yes; not in the “real world” that we both believe in. Since we have certain beliefs in common (the world exists, logic is valid, we can perceive the world fairly accurately, etc.) we have some basis to debate. Otherwise this forum would be rather dull. “I accept as axiomatic that aliens abduct cows.” “OK.” “I accept as axiomatic that God is my cat.” “OK.” “I accept as axiomatic that God is an alien cat that abducts cows.” “OK.”
hehe. Maybe now it’s not, but I think to get where we are today it certainly was.
However you’re talking about the hypothecial. Cause and effect (or predictablity or what not) is an axiom expressed by many people. But likewise so is the surity of a Gods existance. If you would care to show me a number of people who hold this as an axiom of belief then we can address it.
Correct. But that’s just to our own self. Don’t you think that the people who do believe in God allready have this justification? Or are they all mad men =)
I sure do. So long as you can meet my close to axiomatic belief that if someone believes somthing as axiomatic, it will be evident in their actions and consitantly held to be axiomatic. =]
right… and I agree. But what I’m saying is that some of us hold axioms that are supported in our own experince, that others do not hold. And these axioms are ones that are just as equaly valid as the more commonly shared ones of cause and effect and what not.
Now, I’m not saying that God can be proven to somone who doesn’t share the axiom that he exists. I am saying that holding that particular axiom is just as valid as holding the axiom that logic works.
hehe… I don’t know about you, but I for one don’t really hold with any of those as axioms =D
It is a useful, but not an absolutely necessary tool. An extrapolation from regularities would work as well, I think.
Argumentum ad populum. Just because the invisible blue faeries that live in my fridge are not believed by a large number of people does not make them less valid than any other belief, right? Since when is truth determined by a popular vote?
Sure. But I have my own standards of what is “real”. There are people who believe in anal-probing aliens, healing crystals, imperceptible faeries, unicorns, brain-in-a-jar, government conspiracies, that they’re the reincarnation of Elvis, God, etc. I must evaluate their claims based on my own evidence, since I cannot be them. If someone tells you that they’re God, they have empirical evidence that this is so, yet–should you consider their belief just as valid as your belief that you are Ted?
C’mon now, truth is not dependant on whether a person believes it or not. If the imperceptable blue faeries exist, they exist whether or not anyone else believes in them, right? So the faeries are valid, unicorns are valid, aliens are valid, everything that you could concieve of (and everything you can’t) is just as valid as anything else.
Ah, but ice cream has no bones. (Boy, this is going to be a thrilling debate. )
Well, lay out your empirical evidence and philosophical arguments, just as Arnold did for cause and effect, and we can try to determine if they would meet our standards of evidence. Just as I would ask the person who believes he is God to provide evidence that this is so before I take it seriously. (“Doubting Gaudere”? )
[Side Note:] I don’t know that I accept “logic is valid” or “the universe exists” as axiomatic in the sense that it is True, either; however, we do generally use this as a common ground in discussion. If you wish to wholly toss them aside, there’s really very little to debate; we can’t communicate with each other. It’s like someone asks if George Bush would make a good president, and you respond with “well, how do I even know I exist? I can’t even say that, so how can anyone have an opinion on whether George would make good president!”
=] I never used it as an argument against their existance. Only as a way to avoid turning this into an ad abusrdum.
What we are discusing is what people believe as axiomnic. Not what they hypotheicaly could believe.
I should not that while ad populum is not an argument for truth, it is an argument for the consideration of truth.
If only one person believes [via an axiomn] there is some sort of thing as God, it should be dissmised. But when billions of people have such an axionmic view, then the idea should at least be considered that they might actualy be having some sort of experince others are not.
I should in at least considering their belief just as possible as my own belief.
But what we’re talking about is axiomns… what beliefs are based upon. I find it hard to believe that person has these kind of axioms… I do find it quite possible that a person has an experince of God, but only at the bluntest level. I know that all of my axioms, and most of the ones of other people I know, aren’t complicated and assorted beliefs. They are simple and rather murkey things that I can’t quite pin down.
Now is this to say that an axiom has to be that way? No, not in the least. But since we’re the two arguing here, let me ask you, what do you think your core beliefs are when reduced? Are they these complex structures or somthing much more subtle?
I said they are equal vaild in their claims to the truth. Not that they are equaly true. I am making an assertion that an axiom isn’t an axiom unless it is consitantly held with out flux, and in some way has an effect on their life.
If you’ve read any william james, it is sort of similar.
I can argue with blue faries so long as it is not a true axiom. Once it is, I have no ground on which to argue it.
Wheter or not I believe it true.
Hehe, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to aruge for the existance of God. I’m trying to argue that requestion empirical evidence of any axiom is pointless, because axioms don’t have empirical evidence.
Compare two simple people.
Person A holds these axioms:
there is a thing as cause and effect
Person B holds these axioms:
there is a thing as cause and effect
there is a being above everything else
Now then, person A comes up with the postion that there is no God because he never observes such a phenomenon. Person B comes up with a postion that there is a God because he allready has such a notion as part of his build up.
So what happens if they argue? Well… for one, Person A has NO possible way of trying to convice person B that his notion of God existing is incorrect. He might get away with changing the image of God in Person B’s mind, but not that such a god exists.
Likewise person B can not convince person A that there is a God based upon his second axiom. He must do so using his first. He might have a chance to do so, but that’s up in the air.
I don’t know why we’re really arguing. I think we both pretty much agree, in the fundemntals, if not the specfics.
=] shrug oh well.
That’s one of those things that sounds clever, but really doesn’t say much. The way I know personal experience is fallable is not primarily through personal experience :). It can demonstrated objectively and repeatably. Yours is also quite fallible.
You didn’t answer my question, but that’s OK - I regrettably won’t be able to read these threads for a while due to real life time commitments :-|.
Huh? Please bear in mind that this makes absolutely no sense to me. As for having no money and being around those who also have nothing, I’ve done that and I didn’t find God.
Again, huh? Logic is used to analyze arguments. Arguments are valid or invalid. Much can be concluded in this fashion.
