|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 4:35:03 GMT
You'd be comparing things, right? Or you're saying that something else is comparing things? No, you're confirming the force is always proportional to the mass of the objects involved, and everybody who wants to test this can do it easily for themselves if you have any doubts. In fact you're encouraged to test it for yourself. It's not subjective. You mentioned comparisons, no? I'm asking you about comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 6:53:41 GMT
No, you're confirming the force is always proportional to the mass of the objects involved, and everybody who wants to test this can do it easily for themselves if you have any doubts. In fact you're encouraged to test it for yourself. It's not subjective. You mentioned comparisons, no? I'm asking you about comparisons. You'll find the ratio of the force and mass for the gravitational attraction of the moon and the Earth is exactly the same as for a tennis ball and the Earth, or the Earth and the Sun, or our galaxy and the black hole at the center, etc. It's how we know such things are not subjective.
And back to the point, there is no such demonstration of a god, hence believing it, is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 5, 2017 7:51:55 GMT
You're coming across as very thick.
Yeah... You're coming across as rabidly thick. You keep saying that they don't use evidence to rely on.... repeatedly.
Then you say that they don't have good evidence.... which, I agree with. But, Mr. O' Pea Soup In The Head... Shitty evidence is still evidence. It's just not evidence that you agree is valid... as it doesn't count as "proof". Interpretive and circumstantial evidence is still evidence... IT'S JUST NOT PROOF. You can still base a theory - and a belief - on said evidence.. YOU just might not come to the same conclusion, or even see that evidence as substantial.. But.. THEY are allowed to use it as such... and you pretending that they can't (or more specifically - don't).. just makes you seem like an irrational dog with rabies.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 8:00:02 GMT
Yeah... You're coming across as rabidly thick. You keep saying that they don't use evidence to rely on.... repeatedly.
Then you say that they don't have good evidence.... which, I agree with. But, Mr. O' Pea Soup In The Head... Shitty evidence is still evidence. It's just not evidence that you agree is valid... as it doesn't count as "proof". Interpretive and circumstantial evidence is still evidence... IT'S JUST NOT PROOF. You can still base a theory - and a belief - on said evidence.. YOU just might not come to the same conclusion, or even see that evidence as substantial.. But.. THEY are allowed to use it as such... and you pretending that they can't (or more specifically - don't).. just makes you seem like an irrational dog with rabies. No, shitty evidence doesn't demonstrate anything, so it isn't valuable in any way.
Calling the evidence for a god even circumstantial is a loose definition of that term. No presented evidence demonstrates a god exists, or that it's even possible for one to exist.
And it's not even close to a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's barely a coherent idea.
The evidence isn't substantial. It's not whether I see it as such. It's purely that it can not be used to demonstrate a god. Period.
I'm not the irrational one in this situation. The people taking this extremely weak "evidence" and concluding a god is true, are the irrational ones.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 5, 2017 8:01:57 GMT
Yeah... You're coming across as rabidly thick. You keep saying that they don't use evidence to rely on.... repeatedly.
Then you say that they don't have good evidence.... which, I agree with. But, Mr. O' Pea Soup In The Head... Shitty evidence is still evidence. It's just not evidence that you agree is valid... as it doesn't count as "proof". Interpretive and circumstantial evidence is still evidence... IT'S JUST NOT PROOF. You can still base a theory - and a belief - on said evidence.. YOU just might not come to the same conclusion, or even see that evidence as substantial.. But.. THEY are allowed to use it as such... and you pretending that they can't (or more specifically - don't).. just makes you seem like an irrational dog with rabies. No, shitty evidence doesn't demonstrate anything, so it isn't valuable in any way.
Calling the evidence for a god even circumstantial is a loose definition of that term. No presented evidence demonstrates a god exists, or that it's even possible for one to exist.
And it's not even close to a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's barely a coherent idea.
The evidence isn't substantial. It's not whether I see it as such. It's purely that it can not be used to demonstrate a god. Period.
I'm not the irrational one in this situation. The people taking this extremely weak "evidence" and concluding a god is true, are the irrational ones.
There is no cure for rabies.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 8:04:07 GMT
There is no cure for rabies. It's not that complex.
There is no demonstration that a god exists, or that such a being is even possible.
Trying to pretend like there is some evidence of one, is nonsense.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 5, 2017 8:49:17 GMT
I asked you if better was subjective, not god. ...what has god (any of them) got to do with a discussion about faith and beliefs and whether or not a qualifier like "better" is subjective or objective in nature? You're welcome to believe you're immortal if it makes you feel good. I have no problem with that because it has no effect on me whatsoever. It's not like you're trying to convince me that I'm immortal....and if you were, it would be a whole different conversation. The better path is always the one based on decisions that most closely match reality, as your decisions will be based on reality. For whatever reason, you aren't interested encouraging education, if you really don't see any concern with people walking around being delusional about reality. For you, better might mean most closely matching reality... ...but better is a subjective, not an objective, statement. What you personally believe to be better, what you have faith is the best approach to life, is only better for you. Not necessarily for anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 11:17:46 GMT
You mentioned comparisons, no? I'm asking you about comparisons. You'll find the ratio of the force and mass for the gravitational attraction of the moon and the Earth is exactly the same as for a tennis ball and the Earth, or the Earth and the Sun, or our galaxy and the black hole at the center, etc. It's how we know such things are not subjective.
And back to the point, there is no such demonstration of a god, hence believing it, is irrational.
So you're a platonist on ontology of mathematics?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 5, 2017 15:28:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 17:08:38 GMT
For you, better might mean most closely matching reality... ...but better is a subjective, not an objective, statement. What you personally believe to be better, what you have faith is the best approach to life, is only better for you. Not necessarily for anyone else. You are defending a delusional perception of reality. Please understand that we are talking about what is true, and what isn't.
You tried to sidestep into this is being delusional better or worse conversation, which is just a nonsense conversation.
But to help you out, we are talking about whether faith is a path to truth, and it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 17:11:02 GMT
So you're a platonist on ontology of mathematics? No, it's just a simple, repeatable, reliable observation that anybody can make.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 17:56:36 GMT
So you're a platonist on ontology of mathematics? No, it's just a simple, repeatable, reliable observation that anybody can make. Well, if you're not a platonist on mathematics/mathematical objects, where do you believe that ratios are located?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 18:01:56 GMT
Well, if you're not a platonist on mathematics/mathematical objects, where do you believe that ratios are located? They're probably hiding with the mayonnaise.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 18:13:31 GMT
Well, if you're not a platonist on mathematics/mathematical objects, where do you believe that ratios are located? They're probably hiding with the mayonnaise. So I guess you never bothered thinking about this before.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 18:47:31 GMT
One of the reasons I value epistemic/Bayesian rationalism is because two Bayesians can not agree to disagree. Their priors can differ, but once they hash that out and align them, the conclusions must be identical. Slightly off topic: That is precisely the problem I have with some Bayesians: They pretend that the Bayseian formula works (which it does with correct priors), and in doing this they distract from the priors. Back to topic: Good luck determining an a priory probability for the existence of a deity. Most proper Bayesians recognize the problem of finding correct priors. The problem isn't exactly a secret. One possible way to determine a prior probability for anything would be to find a way to program it in binary and then determine its level of computational complexity. Of course, this would depend on people agreeing on what aspects constitute a deity to begin with, so... there's that.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 18:53:38 GMT
1. Not true. One of the reasons I value epistemic/Bayesian rationalism is because two Bayesians can not agree to disagree. Their priors can differ, but once they hash that out and align them, the conclusions must be identical. 2. Truth is "the phrase 'snow is white' is true iff snow is white." (See Tarski) 3. When the observation matches the prediction. Greater accuracy means a greater narrowness in the prediction. Reliability means repeatability of said prediction. Arch isn't doing a good job at responding to your points, but better responses are available from people that know this stuff. One thing at a time. Re (1). For one, even if we're talking strictly about mathematical formulae and avoiding natural language statements, there can be disagreements about how either the semantics and/or the formal procedures of any particular formula should be handled. There is a way to unambiguously formalize such statements via Solomonoff Induction where everything is simply encoded in the universal language of binary. Now, that's practically unfeasible, but it works in principle and we may eventually find ways to make it practically workable by approximations. In the meantime, the only real problem facing epistemic rationality/Bayesianism is what phludowin mentioned: the problem of priors. However, assuming we have means of aligning the priors--and I'd say we do in principle, if not always in practice--then the method itself will not produce different conclusions; which was my real point in regards to your "Any epistemic method can be used to reach different conclusions" claim.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:04:27 GMT
One thing at a time. Re (1). For one, even if we're talking strictly about mathematical formulae and avoiding natural language statements, there can be disagreements about how either the semantics and/or the formal procedures of any particular formula should be handled. There is a way to unambiguously formalize such statements via Solomonoff Induction where everything is simply encoded in the universal language of binary. I'd just be repeating what I said earlier basically. (1) There is no universal language. (2) You can disagree how to formalize anything. (3) There is no unambiguous semantics possible. (1) and (3) are the case, by the way, because of what meaning is ontologically. The ball would be in your court to actually demonstrate any of those things rather than just claiming them.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:35:52 GMT
There is a way to unambiguously formalize such statements via Solomonoff Induction where everything is simply encoded in the universal language of binary. I'd just be repeating what I said earlier basically. (1) There is no universal language. (2) You can disagree how to formalize anything. (3) There is no unambiguous semantics possible. (1) and (3) are the case, by the way, because of what meaning is ontologically. The ball would be in your court to actually demonstrate any of those things rather than just claiming them. (1) How is binary not universal? It's simply "true/false" or "yes/no." (2) You can disagree on how to formalize but you can not disagree on whether the formalization leads to an empirically accurate map of reality as the latter is the guiding principle for the formalization to begin with. I mean, you're free to disagree with, say, the peano axioms; but good luck building another set of mathematical axioms that better reflect the empirical data. (3) "true/false" and "yes/no" are unambiguous semantics. I don't know what you mean by (1) and (3) are true because of "what meaning is ontologically." Meaning is a cognitive concept and even the brain has binary-like elements where synapses either fire (true) or they don't (false).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:45:56 GMT
I'd just be repeating what I said earlier basically. (1) There is no universal language. (2) You can disagree how to formalize anything. (3) There is no unambiguous semantics possible. (1) and (3) are the case, by the way, because of what meaning is ontologically. The ball would be in your court to actually demonstrate any of those things rather than just claiming them. (1) How is binary not universal? It's simply "true/false" or "yes/no." How is it "true/false" or "yes/no" to people who assign "orange/plastic" to 0 and 1?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:06:14 GMT
(1) How is binary not universal? It's simply "true/false" or "yes/no." How is it "true/false" or "yes/no" to people who assign "orange/plastic" to 0 and 1? But what you're talking about then isn't just the language itself but rather the language's referent. This is a different matter entirely and referents would depend on whatever it is we were trying to model; though I can't imagine a case where "orange/plastic" would be a useful distinction.
|
|