To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

I DENY there are any ethical or theological “truths.” There are only opinions. And the evidence for that is the literally thousands of ethical and/or theological “truths” that have been proclaimed and the fact that many of them contradict each other.

Contradiction is not evidence of falsity. In fact, truth is very often paradoxical, and very often self-contradictory, because for we humans, truth is relative.

If there are any such “truths” you guys haven’t found them. Nor have you demonstrated any systematic way of discovering them,

This just a biased opinion, though, isn't it. Same as you accuse others of.

 

[themadhair]

Contradiction is not evidence of falsity.

Actually it is - falsity of the thinking used to generate those theological/ethical truths.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm debating when and how (even whether) to jump back in here. Gimme a couple of days to think about it.

 

[PureX]

Actually it is - falsity of the thinking used to generate those theological/ethical truths.

Contradiction is a philosophical flaw. But we are not asking a philosophical question, when the question is; "does our idea of "God" correspond to actuality?" Our perception of actuality is relative so our experience of it becomes contradictory and paradoxical, depending upon point of view.

I'll give you an example. A passenger car and a pick-up truck are very similar objects. They even share many of the same parts. Yet a passenger car and a pick-up truck are not similar objects in that they have a different design and purpose. And they do not share many of the same parts. Philosophically, these statements are contradictory. Yet in actuality they are both equally accurate (true).

When arguing philosophical positions, we can often use contradiction as a guide to flawed logic. But when establishing truth (the actuality of an object or idea) we will discover that contradiction and paradox are commonplace.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Contradiction is a philosophical flaw. But we are not asking a philosophical question, when the question is; "does our idea of "God" correspond to actuality?" Our perception of actuality is relative so our experience of it becomes contradictory and paradoxical, depending upon point of view.

I'll give you an example. A passenger car and a pick-up truck are very similar objects. They even share many of the same parts. Yet a passenger car and a pick-up truck are not similar objects in that they have a different design and purpose. And they do not share many of the same parts. Philosophically, these statements are contradictory. Yet in actuality they are both equally accurate (true).

When arguing philosophical positions, we can often use contradiction as a guide to flawed logic. But when establishing truth (the actuality of an object or idea) we will discover that contradiction and paradox are commonplace.

I'm not quite sure which contradiction you meant in your example.

You claim they share many of the same parts and then you state they don't. Is that the contradiction you were highlighting? If so, there exists a dichotomy. Either something shares many of the same parts, or it doesn't. So this statement we can rule out as logically unsound as you claim both.

The second contradiction is that they are similar objects used for a different purpose and different design. Well, if they don't share many of the same parts, and they have a different purpose and a different design, what makes them similar? They DO have many of the same parts and the purposes are almost identical, the main purpose being transportation. And the design is not that much different.

There are some differences, but we're talking about similarity so we expect a few differences as they are, of course, two unique objects.

So what you say appears to make absolutely no sense nor is it even true. Perhaps I misunderstand your point.


Contradiction is exactly what falsifies ideas. We have the theory of gravity. If we ever observe an object falling upwards of its own accord (versus normally downward of its own accord as predicted by the theory of gravity...well to be fair, towards the centre of a large mass), that would falsify the theory of gravity.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

If there are any such “truths” you guys haven’t found them. Nor have you demonstrated any systematic way of discovering them,
This just a biased opinion, though, isn't it. Same as you accuse others of.

Feel free to list any of those universal eternal and absolute truths you like.

 

[PureX]

I'm not quite sure which contradiction you meant in your example.

You claim they share many of the same parts and then you state they don't. Is that the contradiction you were highlighting? If so, there exists a dichotomy. Either something shares many of the same parts, or it doesn't. So this statement we can rule out as logically unsound as you claim both.

The second contradiction is that they are similar objects used for a different purpose and different design. Well, if they don't share many of the same parts, and they have a different purpose and a different design, what makes them similar? They DO have many of the same parts and the purposes are almost identical, the main purpose being transportation. And the design is not that much different.

There are some differences, but we're talking about similarity so we expect a few differences as they are, of course, two unique objects.

So what you say appears to make absolutely no sense nor is it even true. Perhaps I misunderstand your point.

That's my point. Philosophically speaking, the statements are contradictory: both vehicles share many of the same parts, and both vehicles do not share many of the same parts, yet in actuality both of these statements are true. Both vehicles are similar in design and purpose, yet both vehicles are not similar in design and purpose. These statements directly contradict each other, yet in actuality they are both true, depending upon how we define their design and purpose.

Contradiction is exactly what falsifies ideas. We have the theory of gravity. If we ever observe an object falling upwards of its own accord (versus normally downward of its own accord as predicted by the theory of gravity...well to be fair, towards the centre of a large mass), that would falsify the theory of gravity.

Gravity is an observable phenomena. The theory of gravity is an attempt at quantifying and predicting that phenomena. Evolution is also a phenomena, but a far more difficult one to observe. And it's also far more difficult to quantify or predict. And therefor more likely to produce apparent contradictions.

Then there are theories that can't be observed, and that involve phenomena that can't be quantified or predicted, like the events of a murder that happened months ago. Or the likelihood of some deadly event happening in the future. Few mysteries are as easily observed and quantified as gravity. And yet we still have no idea what gravity actually is.

 

[PureX]

Actually it is - falsity of the thinking used to generate those theological/ethical truths.

But these are not relevant to the question of the actual existence of "God". When two theists argue the ideal nature of "God", such contradictions can become a guide for spotting illogical thinking, and therefor the weaker proposal. But this has little to do with the question of the actual existence of "God", because once we enter the realm of the actual, truth becomes relative, and contradictions become commonplace.

 

[Vile Atheist]

That's my point. Philosophically speaking, the statements are contradictory: both vehicles share many of the same parts, and both vehicles do not share many of the same parts, yet in actuality both of these statements are true. Both vehicles are similar in design and purpose, yet both vehicles are not similar in design and purpose. These statements directly contradict each other, yet in actuality they are both true, depending upon how we define their design and purpose.

The statements are contradictory, but only one of them can be true. How can you possibly demonstrate that a car has most of the same parts as a truck and does not have most of the same parts of a truck? There is nothing true about what you are saying if you claim both.

Gravity is an observable phenomena. The theory of gravity is an attempt at quantifying and predicting that phenomena. Evolution is also a phenomena, but a far more difficult one to observe. And it's also far more difficult to quantify or predict. And therefor more likely to produce apparent contradictions.

Then there are theories that can't be observed, and that involve phenomena that can't be quantified or predicted, like the events of a murder that happened months ago. Or the likelihood of some deadly event happening in the future. Few mysteries are as easily observed and quantified as gravity. And yet we still have no idea what gravity actually is.

Evolution isn't that much more difficult to predict or quantify than gravity. If you would like to point out these supposed contradictions in evolution, feel free and I'll do my best to answer them.

In your second paragraph, you are jumbling the colloquial usage of "theory" with the scientific usage. Gravity and evolution have been repeatedly tested and fulfilled predictions and we know they are true because there have been no contradictions to the tests and predictions. There is a lot of evidence backing both up.

But for your murder scenario, what you really mean is "hypothesis" or "educated guess". The same scientific usage cannot be applied because the educated guess has not undergone numerous and repeated tests. There have been no predictions made, either.

If a hypothesis is contradicted by evidence, we discard it. If a theory is contradicted by evidence, we either discard it, or come up with an explanation for the anomaly.

And yes. We CAN predict future events based on predictions of current scientific theories and laws. Meaning if there are any contradictions, the theory is no longer reliable and we no longer accept it as valid. We can tell when a comet will collide with a planet. We can predict the number of metres the ocean would rise if the Earth gets hot enough for the ice caps to melt. We are getting closer to being able to predict when earthquakes are about to occur.

And yes. We CAN predict past events based on predictions of current scientific theories and laws. We recreate the scenario and can determine what exactly happened, or at the very least, what probably happened. We can measure the speed at which land masses move, interpolate that back millions of years and get an idea of what Earth looked like then. We can examine fossils and see what kind of creatures roamed the Earth. Look at their claws, bones, teeth, and determine if they were carnivorous or herbivores.

If in your murder scene, the victim was shot with a .22, we can look at the original position of the body, where the bullet entered and from what angle and determine whereabouts the murderer stood and from what distance as he fired the shot. We then examine that area for evidence. Hair samples, fingerprints, shoe-prints, etc. We match them to suspects and can safely conclude they are the murderer. We can tell exactly what happened and with accuracy.



The point in this is, if there is any contradiction to be found, that negates the reliability of the claim/hypothesis/theory. So what you are saying is indeed incorrect.

 

[PureX]

The statements are contradictory, but only one of them can be true. How can you possibly demonstrate that a car has most of the same parts as a truck and does not have most of the same parts of a truck? There is nothing true about what you are saying if you claim both.

But I didn't claim that they share or do not share "most" of their parts. I claimed they share/don't share many of them. And both statements are true. Same goes for their design. Their design is similar, but not the same. Therefor, their designs are different, but still similar.

Absolutism only works when we're discussing ideals. Ideally, 2+2 absolutely equals 4. But in actuality, no two anythings can absolutely equal two of anything else. In actuality, the only way any thing can be absolutely equal to any thing else, is for them to be the same thing.

Evolution isn't that much more difficult to predict or quantify than gravity. If you would like to point out these supposed contradictions in evolution, feel free and I'll do my best to answer them.

We've been at it for 100 years, and still the picture is far from complete. I'm sure along the way scientists and biologists have found many contradicting bits of evidence. But this is not the discussion at hand, and you and I are not up to the level of expertise required for this kind of discussion.

In your second paragraph, you are jumbling the colloquial usage of "theory" with the scientific usage. Gravity and evolution have been repeatedly tested and fulfilled predictions and we know they are true because there have been no contradictions to the tests and predictions. There is a lot of evidence backing both up.

But we are preparing to discuss the actuality of God. This is not going to be achieved through scientific method. So let's PLEASE stop using scientific analogies. God is not gravity. God is not evolution. God is not a physical phenomena that can be measured like gravity can, and God is not a biological process that can be observed like evolution can. God is a subjective spiritual theory that science can neither verify nor disclaim. The rules of evidence are not going to be the same as those of physical science. Nor will they be the same as those used in philosophical (idealized) debate. The rules of evidence for this kind of discussion will have to rest on subjective experiences and collective common sense. And it will have to be understood that we will get no conclusive proof.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Contradiction is a philosophical flaw. But we are not asking a philosophical question, when the question is; "does our idea of "God" correspond to actuality?" Our perception of actuality is relative so our experience of it becomes contradictory and paradoxical, depending upon point of view.

I'll give you an example. A passenger car and a pick-up truck are very similar objects. They even share many of the same parts. Yet a passenger car and a pick-up truck are not similar objects in that they have a different design and purpose. And they do not share many of the same parts. Philosophically, these statements are contradictory. Yet in actuality they are both equally accurate (true).

When arguing philosophical positions, we can often use contradiction as a guide to flawed logic. But when establishing truth (the actuality of an object or idea) we will discover that contradiction and paradox are commonplace.

A) A passenger car and a pick up truck share a majority of parts and are similar

B)But they also don't share a majority of the same parts and are different.

These statments are contradictory and are either 1) One is false and the other is not or 2) They are both false.

They cannot be both the same. Now saying a pcik up truck and a passenger car share some parts and don't share some others is neither contradictory nor wrong.

 

[Enoch07]

A) A passenger car and a pick up truck share a majority of parts and are similar

B)But they also don't share a majority of the same parts and are different.

These statments are contradictory and are either 1) One is false and the other is not or 2) They are both false.

They cannot be both the same. Now saying a pcik up truck and a passenger car share some parts and don't share some others is neither contradictory nor wrong.

3) Or they are both true. (which is the correct answer) Any mechanic can prove this.

 

[Commoner]

But we are preparing to discuss the actuality of God. This is not going to be achieved through scientific method. So let's PLEASE stop using scientific analogies. God is not gravity. God is not evolution. God is not a physical phenomena that can be measured like gravity can, and God is not a biological process that can be observed like evolution can. God is a subjective spiritual theory that science can neither verify nor disclaim. The rules of evidence are not going to be the same as those of physical science. Nor will they be the same as those used in philosophical (idealized) debate. The rules of evidence for this kind of discussion will have to rest on subjective experiences and collective common sense. And it will have to be understood that we will get no conclusive proof.

Enough with the special pleading.

You don't have to prove anything, but if you are saying your "theory" can't be demonstrated, then this discussion is pointless.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

3) Or they are both true. (which is the correct answer) Any mechanic can prove this.

Any mechanic can prove that passenger cars and trucks simultaneously share, and don't share, a majority of parts?

Wow, mechanics are in the wrong business!

 

[Enoch07]

Any mechanic can prove that passenger cars and trucks simultaneously share, and don't share, a majority of parts?

Wow, mechanics are in the wrong business!

Sure thing. Transmissions and engines (among other parts) can be switched out from trucks into cars and vice-versa. I have a 64 impala with a engine from a 69 camaro and a 5 speed transmission from a 80's model fire bird. Before that the engine was a straight 6 with the stock points distributor, but I upgraded it to a electronic distributor out of a 86 c10 pick up truck. So yeah Trucks and Cars while they are different share similar parts.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure thing. Transmissions and engines (among other parts) can be switched out from trucks into cars and vice-versa. I have a 64 impala with a engine from a 69 camaro and a 5 speed transmission from a 80's model fire bird. Before that the engine was a straight 6 with the stock points distributor, but I upgraded it to a electronic distributor out of a 86 c10 pick up truck. So yeah Trucks and Cars while they are different share similar parts.

Trying reading for comprehension this time.

 

[Enoch07]

Trying reading for comprehension this time.

I did. Your trying to strawman the argument. Not gonna happen.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I did. Your trying to strawman the argument. Not gonna happen.

Sure, go ahead and add another nonsensical post to the thread. There's no point in you stopping now.

 

[PureX]

Enough with the special pleading.

You don't have to prove anything, but if you are saying your "theory" can't be demonstrated, then this discussion is pointless.

It can be demonstrated, but not measured. It can be demonstrated, but relatively. But if you're going to define evidence out of existence, then you're right, there is no point in discussing that which you've already decided can't exist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But if you're going to define evidence out of existence, then you're right, there is no point in discussing that which you've already decided can't exist.

Or that which you cannot show exists.