Faith & Reason

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

No, only that negatives cannot be proven. Positives however can be proven. You can prove reindeer can drag a sled with a fat man and a huge sack on a sledge along the ground. Just set up the experiment, hook reindeers to a sledge, and fill it up with a fat man and a burly sack, and there you are.

Then do me a favour, and rid yourself of all technology. Technology is the result of science, which operates on reproducible evidence, ie positive proof.

Zylark, that's not proof. Dare to prove that you can prove something yet?

[Oh shit, you'd need the proof you came up with trying to prove that you can prove something to prove you could have even done that. How circular can one get?]

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Positives however can be proven. You can prove reindeer can drag a sled with a fat man and a huge sack on a sledge along the ground. Just set up the experiment, hook reindeers to a sledge, and fill it up with a fat man and a burly sack, and there you are.

Then do me a favour, and rid yourself of all technology. Technology is the result of science, which operates on reproducible evidence, ie positive proof.

thats still not "proof".

science is just an idea, an agreement, just like time and money.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

[Oh shit, you'd need the proof you came up with trying to prove that you can prove something to prove you could have even done that. How circular can one get?]

when one removes himself from the video-game perception of real life, everything becomes circular

[Zylark]

I think I told you this before bkadocj, but here we go again. If you do not accept reality as we can experience it, and thus prove, then be my guest thinking you live in the matrix or whatever.

I accept reality, and part of that is accepting the scientific evidence of the knowledge we have of it. I don't care much for debating minor points of relativism and semantics. It is just silly IMHO.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by Zylark

and thus prove

how can you prove it?

Originally Posted by Zylark

I accept reality

reality according to whom?

Originally Posted by Zylark

part of that is accepting the scientific evidence of the knowledge we have of it.

there is no difference between your scientific evidence and the "evidence" that a truly pious person holds concerning the existence of his god.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

there is no difference between your scientific evidence and the "evidence" that a truly pious person holds concerning the existence of his god.

Yes there is. Science can reproduce the evidence. It is not just some personal revelation that is not open to scrutiny.

[scoobydooby67]

yikes i had other questions too, oh well.

Originally Posted by Zylark

Science can reproduce the evidence.

religion can reproduce the evidence.

i dont know what youre trying to say here.

Originally Posted by Zylark

It is not just some personal revelation that is not open to scrutiny.

?

everything is open to scrutiny.

to you, science is your "personal revelation", since you place so much stock in it.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

well there you go.

basically, no one can prove anything.

All that writing to tell me something I know. When people state things as being facts, I ask for proof. If they do not provide evidence, why then are they stating something as a fact? Though, thank you for the trip down obvious lane.

Also, people can certainly prove some things. I can prove that when a car is on, has gas, is in perfect working condition, and is in proper gear, placing your foot on the accelerator and pushing it down will cause the car to move. Feel free to try it out. While we cannot be 100% certain of anything, 100% certainty is not required.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

there is no difference between your scientific evidence and the "evidence" that a truly pious person holds concerning the existence of his god.

I would certainly like for you to explain that in more detail.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

3. dreaming.

point 1. i often have dreaming experiences that seem fantastical and "unreal".
point 2. there is no way to distinguish between dreaming and waking life.
point 3. i do not place trust in my dreams.

Just a small point, but if point 2 is true lucid dreaming would be impossible.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

religion can reproduce the evidence.

religion haven't got evidence for anything. It is only based upon personal revelation written down in some text, aka holy scripture. Scripture one is supposed to believe in blindly, despite lacking evidence, and even despite contradictory evidence.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

to you, science is your "personal revelation", since you place so much stock in it.

You go ahead and think so, I won't stop you. And whilst you're at it, tell me how much technology we'd have today without the understanding science gives us.

I will however stop debating this theme, it is just silly and a waste of my time.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

All that writing to tell me something I know. When people state things as being facts, I ask for proof. If they do not provide evidence, why then are they stating something as a fact? Though, thank you for the trip down obvious lane.

well half the time people are demanding that i explain myself, so i thought i would write a pre-eminent explanation.

obvious lane was fun, next time you can hold my hand while we skip.

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Also, people can certainly prove some things. I can prove that when a car is on, has gas, is in perfect working condition, and is in proper gear, placing your foot on the accelerator and pushing it down will cause the car to move. Feel free to try it out. While we cannot be 100% certain of anything, 100% certainty is not required.I would certainly like for you to explain that in more detail.

if you already regard my argument as obvious then why are you asking this?

argument 5 covers this.

if you were just a brain in a vat of an evil genius's laboratory,

you could not trust what you thought was going on, for your experience are merely products of the genius's whim.

the fact is, you can not rule that are you not the product of a controlling diety that chooses your experiences for you.

that car that you start is an image and experience especially chosen for you.

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Just a small point, but if point 2 is true lucid dreaming would be impossible.

the point of this argument is not so much that you know whether dreaming is reality or waking life is the real reality,

but that even if you were lucidly dreaming, the conclusion remains the same.

you can not trust what you gain through experiences, whether it be awake, dreaming, or in between.

Originally Posted by Zylark

religion haven't got evidence for anything. It is only based upon personal revelation written down in some text, aka holy scripture. Scripture one is supposed to believe in blindly, despite lacking evidence, and even despite contradictory evidence.

according to your foundation of science, yes, religion has no evidence.

but why are you confining yourself to any written doctrine or dogma such as scripture?

who are you to say that someone hasnt felt the touch of god?

a religious person's evidence for their connection with god through a life-changing experience

might be an overwhelming awe-inspiring presence they feel within them that drives them to tears and catches their breath.

within this moment a piercing clarity and powerful vibration sends the body into convulsions, the person is ranting and raving gibberish.

now, such is the practice of pentecostals.

while youre science may break it down and say "you sillybuns, this experience is easily explained by a simple chemical reaction that began in the brain".

that does not change the fact that the pious is convinced that they have felt god, and who are you to say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Zylark

tell me how much technology we'd have today without the understanding science gives us.

you threw this at bkadoctaj as well.

im not understanding where it is that i or him even suggested that technology was unnecessary, or science for that matter.

im just saying that science is nothing more than an idea.

it is an agreement, a mutual understanding,

the same way that the value of the dollar, and the measurement of time,

are simply shared concepts.

Originally Posted by Zylark

I will however stop debating this theme, it is just silly and a waste of my time.

oh my bad.

i didnt know i was wasting the valuable time you spend browsing a pothead forum.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

obvious lane was fun, next time you can hold my hand while we skip.

Can we not hold hands while skipping, or is it a requirement?

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

if you already regard my argument as obvious then why are you asking this?

What am I asking? I was asking you to explain the statement that I quoted, which does not touch on any part of your argument that I called "obvious".

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

argument 5 covers this.

Argument 5 assumes a great deal. Why must we assume the evil genius can totally fool you simply because he is attempting to?

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

if you were just a brain in a vat of an evil genius's laboratory,

you could not trust what you thought was going on, for your experience are merely products of the genius's whim.

If I have no idea I am simply a brain in a vat, then what else am I supposed to do but assume that my senses are not lying to me? Insane people have an issue with that because they believe the rest of the world is nuts, not them. They have ample evidence that it is in fact them who are insane, they are just not able, or willing, to recognize it. Certainly all my senses can be lying to me, I am not going to waste my time and believe that simply because it is a possibility, just like I will not waste my time believing that life is a dream, or that god is going to send me to hell for not believing in him. Possibility does not equal certainty, nor does it even mean it is likely. What if's are fun, not something to base your perception of the world on, however.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

the fact is, you can not rule that are you not the product of a controlling diety that chooses your experiences for you.

I like the contradiction in that statement.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

that car that you start is an image and experience especially chosen for you.

If you were trapped in the Matrix, that does not change the fact that it is real, nor does it change the fact that you could know something about that reality.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

the point of this argument is not so much that you know whether dreaming is reality or waking life is the real reality,

but that even if you were lucidly dreaming, the conclusion remains the same.

you can not trust what you gain through experiences, whether it be awake, dreaming, or in between.

If we cannot know what is reality, should we then not accept what we find and work under the assumption that it is, in fact, reality? There is no evidence to suggest all of this *waves in direction of the Universe* is not real, because, quite frankly, it is. Even if we're all in a computer simulation, the dream of an all-powerful being, or the result of a really big explosion. The idea that we cannot know something about this reality is asinine, plain and simple. We can. We do. Everything in our society shows us that. This debate over this reality being real, or a shadow of some greater reality, or simply a dream, is rather meaningless and does not refute the idea that we can know something about this world and call it a fact. Again, possibility does not equal certainty, even the 99% kind.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Argument 5 assumes a great deal. Why must we assume the evil genius can totally fool you simply because he is attempting to?

its not an assumption at all.

its a possibility.

just because possibility may not imply certainty,

this does denote that the possibility is invalid.

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Certainly all my senses can be lying to me, I am not going to waste my time and believe that simply because it is a possibility, just like I will not waste my time believing that life is a dream, or that god is going to send me to hell for not believing in him. Possibility does not equal certainty, nor does it even mean it is likely. What if's are fun, not something to base your perception of the world on, however.

its not a matter of what if's at all.

im sorry you have closed your mind to this model, i guess im just wasting yours and zylark's time huh?

i was simply trying to provide a model by which we can seek knowledge.

it is in the acceptance of ignorance in which we find enlightenment.

i guess ill quote socrates in that "wisdom is knowing that you do not know".

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

If you were trapped in the Matrix, that does not change the fact that it is real, nor does it change the fact that you could know something about that reality.

The idea that we cannot know something about this reality is asinine, plain and simple. We can. We do. Everything in our society shows us that. This debate over this reality being real, or a shadow of some greater reality, or simply a dream, is rather meaningless and does not refute the idea that we can know something about this world and call it a fact. Again, possibility does not equal certainty, even the 99% kind.

you misunderstand me.

zylark and i started this part of the debate over the idea of "proof".

i am on hour 40 of no sleep,

so i if stated anywhere that i said you could not "know", i apologize.

that was not what i was trying to say.

i was merely trying to give relevance to the argument that technically you can not "prove" anything,

because of the five arguments of the method of doubt.

i was trying to emphasize that there are no absolutes (which is an absolute)

and that you can never be 100% certain that you are not in one of the 5 scenarios,

so it seems that "asinine" would be to automatically reject one of the scenarios instead of analyzing it for possible clues on how to make sense of ourselves.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

its not an assumption at all.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

5. evil genius.

point 1. if an evil genius was employing all his cunning in order to deceive me, i would not be able to tell.
point 2. if i can not know whether an evil genius is deceiving me, then i can not rule it out.

If an evil genius was employing all of his cunning in order to deceive me, I...

1. Might be decieved.
2. Might not be decieved.

The argument assumes there is no possibility of not being fooled and simply because he is attempting to fool you, you will be fooled. Perhaps this is just an issue with semantics, however?

If an evil genius was employing all his cunning in order to deceive me, and I was not be able to tell.

That sounds better.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

im sorry you have closed your mind to this model, i guess im just wasting yours and zylark's time huh?

I have closed my mind to the model, which is pretty much saying we cannot be 100% certain about anything, which is something I have never denied and have in fact said many times, in many threads, and throughout my whole life?

Did I mention my time being wasted at all?

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

it is in the acceptance of ignorance in which we find enlightenment.

i guess ill quote socrates in that "wisdom is knowing that you do not know".

"True wisdom is knowing that you can know something while at the same time not being 100% certain about it." My words of course, though I think Socrates would agree. I wonder why I think that?

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

so i if stated anywhere that i said you could not "know", i apologize.

Then it is possible to know something? Argument is over and done with as that was my point.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

i am on hour 40 of no sleep

I advise getting some sleep for health reasons man, it was not long ago you were up for 60 hours straight!