Mental Instability Diagnosis of Mohammed

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

The above again ask that I prove an assertion within the context of science when the original assertion (a God) by definition cannot exist within science.

I believe this is also disingenuous of you. You appear to be conveniently re-defining science so that it cannot be applied to the problem. Science does not impose any limitations on what can be discovered, science is a search for knowledge. You are trying to say that science only examines the material and will not attempt to look at the immaterial. That is incorrect. The fact that science only deals with the material is that only the material has been discovered. If the supernatural is discoverable then science would be our best method to make the discovery.

And if you disagree then please demonstrate a better method for discovery of knowledge.

Either way, no, it is certainly not analogous. For in the case of the dice, you defined all the 36 outcomes. Thus by definition, there cannot be a 37th possibility within the context you are using.

But the analogy must hold since from observation we know there are many things that are not possible, e.g. black cannot be white, a car cannot travel north and south at the same instant, Mickey Mouse cannot become president, etc, etc. The point is that there are a finite number of possible states in which reality operates. Our problem is counting them. What I am saying is that we are not at liberty to count the speculative concept of the supernatural as a possibility yet. I would agree that we have most likely not discovered all possibilities yet, but while we can imagine the supernatural that does not qualify it as a real possibility.

However, within the context of the universe, you, by definition of your system accept an infinite space. An infinite space necessarily means an infinite amount of possibilities.

Again that is a non-sequitur. It certainly does not follow that if the space increases in size that that makes impossible things possible. Whatever the size of the universe two 6 sided dice will still only result in 36 combinations. Even within an infinite universe there will still remain a finite set of possibilities, i.e. some things will always remain impossible.

 

[wesmorris]

/ Are you insane? I dare not try.

Uh huh.

/Which would necessarily imply either an infinite time or a lack thereof of time. If you accept science, then you know that this universe is aged. Therefore, simply ‘IS’ would be nonsense.

IMO, "is" implies only "as long as there has been time".

/You cannot imply anything about the nature of the cause using that train of thought. You can merely suggest that there was a cause for the first effect and leave it at that.

Semantics.

/Explain to me the reasoning.

Done.

/Little punk, learn how to read.

Try the same.

/I am going to lie: No I have never misread.

I'm going to lie: You have fully dissected every argument I've ever put on sciforums and exposed me for the charlitan that I am.

/Nerd.

I'm sorry but an EE is more of a nerd than an IE by definition. (I know because I started in EE, ECE to be more specific)

/Moron. **chuckle**

Nerd.

/Any assertion regarding a deity is only nonsense if and only if you accept that it is nonsense to challenge his claim—as neither of you can make any claims as to a deity—within a common context.

Indeed the only common context is exactly that assertions regarding deity's are nonsense. That is if one is reasonable.

/Yes. Every member of society is mentally ill.

Hmm. I guessed around 90%. I don't think everyone is, but close. I might be the only sane person in the world. *chuckle*

/Wrong. The modern observations leading to the assertion has not changed from past observations. This would for example apply to the aged old knowledge that intercourse can result in birth. Minimal observations, but the same and correct conclusion. To use “ANY” is bullshit.

Consider parallels to the development / evolution of language, science and religion. These are the tools by which humans establish their context (though generally through vernacular understandings of them). The farther back you go the looser and more innaccurate one's context becomes.

/Well then you can throw away your subjective take on reason and simply lick a bucket dry.

Why would I do that when it's so obviously subjectively superior to your line of reasoning?

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris,

I believe this is also disingenuous of you. You appear to be conveniently re-defining science so that it cannot be applied to the problem. Science does not impose any limitations on what can be discovered, science is a search for knowledge. You are trying to say that science only examines the material and will not attempt to look at the immaterial. That is incorrect. The fact that science only deals with the material is that only the material has been discovered. If the supernatural is discoverable then science would be our best method to make the discovery.

This is twice I have been labelled disingenuous. In what sense are you using this label? As to your post, this is not what I am saying. I am saying that by definition, I cannot PROVE an assertion that there is a God by scientific methods. This is because that definiton is proved only through faith.

And if you disagree then please demonstrate a better method for discovery of knowledge.

What makes you think that I disagree with the scientific method?

But the analogy must hold since from observation we know there are many things that are not possible, e.g. black cannot be white, a car cannot travel north and south at the same instant, Mickey Mouse cannot become president, etc, etc. The point is that there are a finite number of possible states in which reality operates. Our problem is counting them. What I am saying is that we are not at liberty to count the speculative concept of the supernatural as a possibility yet. I would agree that we have most likely not discovered all possibilities yet, but while we can imagine the supernatural that does not qualify it as a real possibility.

Here is the most improtant part--- "reality operates". How can you equate the assertion that there is a supernatural to a system that exists only in the context of reality-- and further even at that?

Again that is a non-sequitur. It certainly does not follow that if the space increases in size that that makes impossible things possible. Whatever the size of the universe two 6 sided dice will still only result in 36 combinations. Even within an infinite universe there will still remain a finite set of possibilities, i.e. some things will always remain impossible.

Looked at this way, my assertion is cleary spurious. But this is not my intention. Recall that I said this: "Thus by definition, there cannot be a 37th possibility within the context you are using". You are using the context of the observable-- reality-- to apply to an implication of a cause that is not defined within the context. An infinite space suggests infinite possibilities about something that is not observed-- for by definition, all can be valid.

 

[thefountainhed]

IMO, "is" implies only "as long as there has been time".

But if time is definable only within the context of existence, then this implies a cause.

Semantics.

Expand

Try the same.

unimaginative

I'm going to lie: You have fully dissected every argument I've ever put on sciforums and exposed me for the charlitan that I am.[/.quote]
Obviously the limiting word here is "every"--and I have not seen every one of your false arguments. For every false argument I see of yours has been dissected.

I'm sorry but an EE is more of a nerd than an IE by definition. (I know because I started in EE, ECE to be more specific)

Fuck your definitions.

Nerd.

By your subjective definition, you are more of a nerd that me because not only were you EE, but became ECE, are older, and myopic.

Indeed the only common context is exactly that assertions regarding deity's are nonsense. That is if one is reasonable.

And this necessarily implies that assertions that deties do not exist are nonsense.

Hmm. I guessed around 90%. I don't think everyone is, but close. I might be the only sane person in the world. *chuckle*

I will start another thread for this debate.

Consider parallels to the development / evolution of language, science and religion. These are the tools by which humans establish their context (though generally through vernacular understandings of them). The farther back you go the looser and more innaccurate one's context becomes.

But we are not arguing the context.Rather, we are arguing the assertion that these conclusions, by virtue of being based on a limitied context are "BULLSHIT". And I have shown this to be false.

Why would I do that when it's so obviously subjectively superior to your line of reasoning?

Fuck your subjectivity.

 

[wesmorris]

/But if time is definable only within the context of existence, then this implies a cause.

Why? Because of the thinking you apply to existence? You may think it applied but there is no reason to. Cause and effect make no sense outside the context of existence.

/unimaginative

So what?

/Fuck your definitions.

You're better than that. Stop it.

/By your subjective definition, you are more of a nerd that me because not only were you EE, but became ECE, are older, and myopic.

NO I was ECE then turned IE. So having never graduated EE, you are the nerd. I am merely your overlord.

/And this necessarily implies that assertions that deties do not exist are nonsense.

Agreed.

/I will start another thread for this debate.

Don't you remember that i started it a LONG time ago?

/But we are not arguing the context.Rather, we are arguing the assertion that these conclusions, by virtue of being based on a limitied context are "BULLSHIT".

So you say that illustrating the limitations of context isn't pertinent to an assertion that conclusions based on limited context which are in regard to one's entire context are bullshit?

/And I have shown this to be false.

Where?

/Fuck your subjectivity.

Uhm. NO. Fuck YOUR stupid HED. Like a skull fuckign kind of thing. All goopy with brains a stuff. Ick.

Please, let's not resort to retarded flames? I'm SO fucking tired of it.

 

[thefountainhed]

Why? Because of the thinking you apply to existence? You may think it applied but there is no reason to. Cause and effect make no sense outside the context of existence.

Explain to me how cause and effect does not apply. I am interested.

So what?

Nothing beyond the assertion

You're better than that. Stop it.

LOL. Done

NO I was ECE then turned IE. So having never graduated EE, you are the nerd. I am merely your overlord.

Bah. I fit no description of a nerd.

Agreed.

good.

Don't you remember that i started it a LONG time ago?

Link?

So you say that illustrating the limitations of context isn't pertinent to an assertion that conclusions based on limited context which are in regard to one's entire context are bullshit?

Yes. Because if the conclusions arrived are exact, then the limited context obviously does not impact the conclusion. Thus, limited or not, it is irrelevant.

Where?

Limited ancient context: The nature of the reproductive system.
Conclusion: Sexual intercourse can result in birth.

Uhm. NO. Fuck YOUR stupid HED. Like a skull fuckign kind of thing. All goopy with brains a stuff. Ick.

LOL

Please, let's not resort to retarded flames? I'm SO fucking tired of it.

Flames? Where? Where. **holding a minute glass of water**
Nah Old man, as I have already told you, I will never get in a flame war with you. Reasons have been explained.

 

[wesmorris]

/Explain to me how cause and effect does not apply. I am interested.

Because while you are correct that a cause should be implied, implications don't mean anything outside a context, and prior to the big bang there can be no context. With no space-time in which a cause to be, how can there be cause? What if there was something different than space-time where time flowed backwards? I just mean that even the most basic logic doesn't necessarily apply.

/Bah. I fit no description of a nerd.

I suppose I do. You win, but just a little. Nerd overlord fits better. (because I find it humorous)

Really though, I'm a dork. Big dork. Yup.

/Link?

Man if I could remember what I called it. It was a poll. I'll edit and post a link if I find it.

/Yes. Because if the conclusions arrived are exact, then the limited context obviously does not impact the conclusion. Thus, limited or not, it is irrelevant.

I see what you're driving at I think and only disagree because I think the topic of deities to be an exception. As we've concluded, no statement about deities is rational. The lack of context is only pertinent to how the ideas of religions spread in the first place. I was implying that the reason you and I might be able to reach he logical conclusion that conclusions regarding deities are irrational is because for instance, we know about things like the big bang, solar systems... etc. We are not starved for context.

In addressing the obvious objection "but why religion today", cultural momentum and the short amount of time of the awareness of a larger context easily explain why religion is prominent (well, that and I suppose that when people think for themselves they must have a tendency to justify rather than examine). Anyway, this was a lame attempt to address the issues supporting the issue at hand. It is only relevent to the context in which this argument is pertinent. Seemed relevant at the time but shit maybe I'm talking crazy eh?

 

[thefountainhed]

Because while you are correct that a cause should be implied, implications don't mean anything outside a context, and prior to the big bang there can be no context. With no space-time in which a cause to be, how can there be cause? What if there was something different than space-time where time flowed backwards? I just mean that even the most basic logic doesn't necessarily apply.

Yes, I have already asserted that the nature of the cause cannot be discussed within the context of reality; and that ideas developed within the context of reality, i.e. logic, EDIT:canNOT be used outside said context. But the cause can be implied. So if a religion asserts that their deity cannot be proven in the real, but in their faith, I have no qualms about that.

Really though, I'm a dork. Big dork. Yup.

**Chris Tucker imitation** And you this. maaan!

I see what you're driving at I think and only disagree because I think the topic of deities to be an exception. As we've concluded, no statement about deities is rational. The lack of context is only pertinent to how the ideas of religions spread in the first place. I was implying that the reason you and I might be able to reach he logical conclusion that conclusions regarding deities are irrational is because for instance, we know about things like the big bang, solar systems... etc. We are not starved for context.

No, one can reach the same conclusions using cause and effect. Leibniz came close, but could not forgo his religious belief.

In addressing the obvious objection "but why religion today", cultural momentum and the short amount of time of the awareness of a larger context easily explain why religion is prominent (well, that and I suppose that when people think for themselves they must have a tendency to justify rather than examine). Anyway, this was a lame attempt to address the issues supporting the issue at hand. It is only relevent to the context in which this argument is pertinent. Seemed relevant at the time but shit maybe I'm talking crazy eh?

Good points. Religion is merely an attempt to understand the 'cause'. Other factors are also important, i.e. a feeling of purpose, etc.

 

[mouse]

thefountainhed,

If I state that everything must have a cause and back that with empirical data, then I can conclude that by virtue of existing, we had to have a creator.

If you can equate cause and creator. Creator gives the impression of a single entity working towards a product, whereas a cause can be one of many necessary which involuntarily
happened to lead to, e.g., us.

Thus, my hypothesis or theory holds up whenever an action is caused by a force or whatever.

Which does not make it very specific.

 

[Zero]

Getting warm are we?

Carry on. I'll jump in later ... but I'm out of touch with SF

 

[thefountainhed]

If you can equate cause and creator. Creator gives the impression of a single entity working towards a product, whereas a cause can be one of many necessary which involuntarily
happened to lead to, e.g., us.

It seems you are still limiting yourself to definitions given by religion. I use cause and creator interchangeably because I donot subject those labels to religious definitions.

Which does not make it very specific.

Why does it have to be specific when the observations and subsequent predictions are ubiquitous?

 

[(Q)]

Yes, I have already asserted that the nature of the cause cannot be discussed within the context of reality; and that ideas developed within the context of reality, i.e. logic, EDIT:canNOT be used outside said context.

This is nonsense. The context of reality is all that exists. If something does not exist, it is not part of reality. Faith is also part of reality because faith exists however the concepts that drive faith (gods) are not. But that doesn’t mean those concepts can be discussed outside the context of reality.

 

[thefountainhed]

The context of reality is all that exists. If something does not exist, it is not part of reality. Faith is also part of reality because faith exists however the concepts that drive faith (gods) are not. But that doesn’t mean those concepts can be discussed outside the context of reality.

OK. This is all good and all, but when did i say that those concepts can be discussed outside the context of reality? Recall this: "Any assertion regarding a deity is only nonsense if and only if you accept that it is nonsense to challenge his claim—as neither of you can make any claims as to a deity—within a common context.".

 

[(Q)]

OK. This is all good and all, but when did i say that those concepts can be discussed outside the context of reality?

It’s a moot point – nothing can be discussed outside the context of reality. Therefore, to discuss faith, religion, gods, whatever, requires that you MUST discuss, think, imagine, whatever, these concepts within the context of reality.

"Any assertion regarding a deity is only nonsense if and only if you accept that it is nonsense to challenge his claim—as neither of you can make any claims as to a deity—within a common context.".

Nonsense. The common context IS reality. Claims of a deity are conceived, challenged and accepted WITHIN the confines of reality. You are asserting there is some other realm in which concepts can be discussed.

 

[thefountainhed]

It’s a moot point – nothing can be discussed outside the context of reality. Therefore, to discuss faith, religion, gods, whatever, requires that you MUST discuss, think, imagine, whatever, these concepts within the context of reality.

No it does not. The only necessary implication is that since the nature of the cause cannot be explained within reality, said nature cannot be discussed within the common context of reality.

Nonsense. The common context IS reality. Claims of a deity are conceived, challenged and accepted WITHIN the confines of reality. You are asserting there is some other realm in which concepts can be discussed.

No, the above is nonsense; read my damn posts! I am saying that the nature of a deity has no common context, and therefore cannot be discussed within reality. How the hell is the notion of the supernatural reality? Are you suggesting simply because I can imagine something whilst inhabiting the real, then I should discuss that imgaination within the real?

 

[(Q)]

The only necessary implication is that since the nature of the cause cannot be explained within reality, said nature cannot be discussed within the common context of reality.

Then please explain exactly where the concept can be discussed?

How the hell is the notion of the supernatural reality?

Quite simple, the notion of the supernatural is conceived within our minds and therefore is part of reality. But that doesn’t mean the supernatural itself exists in reality.

Are you suggesting simply because I can imagine something whilst inhabiting the real, then I should discuss that imgaination within the real?

You don’t have any other choice but reality. Where else were you planning on discussing what’s in your imagination?

 

[thefountainhed]

Then please explain exactly where the concept can be discussed?

Quite frankly, I do not know and really do not care. Others however do and have developed religion, maybe you should ask them.

Quite simple, the notion of the supernatural is conceived within our minds and therefore is part of reality. But that doesn’t mean the supernatural itself exists in reality.

This post is illogical.

You state: The notion of a supernatural exists in our minds and thus is reality.
Then state: The supernatural exists outside reality.

You don’t have any other choice but reality. Where else were you planning on discussing what’s in your imagination?

Discuss in the terms of explaining it within the real-- to relate to the notion of a supernatural. Therefore, look at my reply to your first statement within this post.

But again it seems we keep drifting to your sujective notions of a supernatural. Please illustrate your definition of a supernatural; I believe that will help everyone.

 

[(Q)]

Quite frankly, I do not know and really do not care.

As I suspected, you’re unable to back up your argument. “The dog barks.”

This post is illogical.

You state: The notion of a supernatural exists in our minds and thus is reality.
Then state: The supernatural exists outside reality.

Neurons fire, this is a reality. Get it?

Discuss in the terms of explaining it within the real-- to relate to the notion of a supernatural. Therefore, look at my reply to your first statement within this post.

Again, unable to back your argument. “The caravan passes.”

Please illustrate your definition of a supernatural; I believe that will help everyone.

Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws.

You pontificate the moot.

 

[thefountainhed]

(Q).
You are starting to annoy me by not reading my posts or simply ignoring to understand what they mean.

As I suspected, you’re unable to back up your argument. “The dog barks.”

I have ALREADY FUCKING SAID THAT WHAT EXISTS OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE REAL CANNOT BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE REAL. AND THAT ANY ATTEMPT ATTEMPT TO DO SO-- AND THIS INCLUDES BOTH AN AFFIRMATION OR DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL IS NONSENSE. NEVER ONCE DID I MENTION I KNOW THE CONTEXT THIS CAN BE DISCUSSED! GET IT???????

Neurons fire, this is a reality. Get it?

This in response this irrationaly: "You state: The notion of a supernatural exists in our minds and thus is reality.
Then state: The supernatural exists outside reality."?

Again, unable to back your argument. “The caravan passes.”

I will ignore everyone of your damn posts unless YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME ARGUMENTS I HAVE ACTUALLY PUT FORTH!!!

Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws.

And this means therefore that it cannot be discussed within the real. So what the fuck are you arguing about?

You pontificate the moot.

And you are more of an ostentatious nitwit that most religious fundamnetalists.

 

[(Q)]

I have ALREADY FUCKING SAID THAT WHAT EXISTS OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE REAL CANNOT BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE REAL.

Complete nonsense. CAPS do not make your argument valid.

AND THAT ANY ATTEMPT ATTEMPT TO DO SO-- AND THIS INCLUDES BOTH AN AFFIRMATION OR DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL IS NONSENSE. NEVER ONCE DID I MENTION I KNOW THE CONTEXT THIS CAN BE DISCUSSED!

Then you have no argument and no point to make – you’re just rambling.

This in response this irrationaly: "You state: The notion of a supernatural exists in our minds and thus is reality.
Then state: The supernatural exists outside reality."?

Neurons fire, but I’m beginning to think that in your case, they misfire. I can’t imagine why you can’t understand this simple premise. Perhaps you consider ideas are supernatural in nature and therefore do not exist?

I will ignore everyone of your damn posts unless YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME ARGUMENTS I HAVE ACTUALLY PUT FORTH!!!

I tried to explain something to you but you can’t seem to understand. You may ignore me if you wish, but you have made no argument whatsoever.

And this means therefore that it cannot be discussed within the real.

You keep saying that but cannot come up with an argument in your defense. Pointless ramblings.

And you are more of an ostentatious nitwit that most religious fundamnetalists.

LOL. The pot calling the kettle black.