Present Evidence Here II

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, the word "God" is just a sound many people make when they can't stand having to say "I don't know."

[TheCloser]

we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations. 

[Mike Cl]

we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations.

What is that 'something' to you???

[TheCloser]

don't know.

At the very least it is more valid to claim we are in something alive.  Traits? well, we have only human understanding so I would say a very small part is us.  All of us is most certainly it. 

Theist have many of the traits wrong.  Like we are damned and all of that other magical crap and domination of one religion nonsense.  But the science supports their connections to something bigger then themselves.  That part is real enough.   

[Hydra009]

we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

Brb, on my way to convert now.  But what religion should I convert to?  Hrmm....

[TheCloser]

Brb, on my way to convert now.  But what religion should I convert to?  Hrmm....

that's not the point.  Unless you're axe grinding or have some other personal need to fight a religion.

The point is; it is more valid to claim something.  You can do anything you want after that.  I would stay away from hurting others for your belief or feeling better than others due to your belief.  Having the "only" truth is stupid too.  But those suggestions are independent of belief, a jerk is a jerk no matter what they believe in.

[Hydra009]

The point is; it is more valid to claim something.

Right.  Because it doesn't make intuitive sense that humans are alive but the universe in general is not alive, therefore some sort of suspiciously nebulous God exists.  Sounds legit.

But whatever, I'll go for it.



Bam.  Something.

You can do anything you want after that.

Giving me what I already have.  How generous.

I would stay away from hurting others for your belief or feeling better than others due to your belief.  Having the "only" truth is stupid too.  But those suggestions are independent of belief, a jerk is a jerk no matter what they believe in.

Those are pretty mild codes of conduct for humanity that surprisingly enough, are actually pretty progressive in religious circles.  But let's do more!  How about an insistence on logic and rationality?

[Mike Cl]

don't know.

At the very least it is more valid to claim we are in something alive.  Traits? well, we have only human understanding so I would say a very small part is us.  All of us is most certainly it. 

Theist have many of the traits wrong.  Like we are damned and all of that other magical crap and domination of one religion nonsense.  But the science supports their connections to something bigger then themselves.  That part is real enough.

Why is it more valid to claim we are in something alive?  And what does the word 'alive' mean? 

Of course we are part of something bigger.  So what?  We are also part of something much, much smaller (microbes).  So what?  The sun is bigger than me--does that mean the sun is alive?  I am much smaller than a redwood tree; does that constitute some sort of proof of something??? 

You use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?

[Hydra009]

You use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?

P1: X exists
P2: ?
C: X exists

[Baruch]

we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations.

Never talk simple metaphysics to materialists ;-)  These questions are fundamental clues that we are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.  The answer of materialists is the pseudo-science of epiphenomenalism (or emergentism) .. which is in fact a philosophy subset to the philosophy of scientism (which isn't science, in spite of the duplicitous naming).

The problem is analysis (philosophical, not calculus) and abstraction.  I can have a ship.  I can model a ship and put it in a bottle.  I can have the idea of a ship.  These three are not the same.  I can analyze a person down to the atoms, and a rock down to the atoms ... and not surprisingly, I find that both are composed of atoms.  So I conclude, since atoms are primary to their assemblages ... that a rock and a human are one and the same.  In more abstract terms, this is how Pythagoras came up with the idea that there was no material reality either, just numbers (the whole numbers only, starting with one, two ...).  Material analysis aka physics and numerical analysis are both useful disciplines, as an engineer I used both ... but they aren't "Truth".  They are methods, not results.  Scientific method is ... a method, not a result.  Science doesn't produce "Truth" is produces better questions.

So idealists will idealize .. that there is no human doing the experiment, not human thinking the thought (we know this is wrong in QM and psychology).  There was even an attempt in psychology (Behaviorism) to deny that humans had any thoughts, only objectively observable external behaviors ... but while popular in the US during the mid-20th century, this fad faded.  All this abstraction goes back to Plato, anyone who does it is a follower of Plato, who was a philosopher, not a mathematician (like Euclid) nor a scientist (like Aristotle).  Our present day political science however, does go back to Plato's "Republic".

[Baruch]

P1: X exists
P2: ?
C: X exists

Logic and rationality aren't .. your strongpoints .. at least in this syllogism.  Logic and rationality aren't rhetorical weapons, any more than number theory is.

[TheCloser]

Right.  Because it doesn't make intuitive sense that humans are alive but the universe in general is not alive, therefore some sort of suspiciously nebulous God exists.  Sounds legit.

But whatever, I'll go for it.



Bam.  Something.
Giving me what I already have.  How generous.
Those are pretty mild codes of conduct for humanity that surprisingly enough, are actually pretty progressive in religious circles.  But let's do more!  How about an insistence on logic and rationality?

yeah, I agree, this is as good as their god.  I mean if we want to pit one religion against another the spaghetti god vs. Jesus god brawl is fine.  I'll watch for amusement.

My fight is not against religion.  their god is not real so i don't fight what is not real.  I fight what is real only. I might as well go back and play eighth grade football and claim victory!!!! 

If we are only dealing with describing and predicting how the universe works then the spaghetti monster is wrong.  It is a figment if people's imagination.  Just like a finger pointing old man in the sky.  Great, one fairytale thrown at another, good stuff right there.

[TheCloser]

Never talk simple metaphysics to materialists ;-)  These questions are fundamental clues that we are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.  The answer of materialists is the pseudo-science of epiphenomenalism (or emergentism) .. which is in fact a philosophy subset to the philosophy of scientism (which isn't science, in spite of the duplicitous naming).

The problem is analysis (philosophical, not calculus) and abstraction.  I can have a ship.  I can model a ship and put it in a bottle.  I can have the idea of a ship.  These three are not the same.  I can analyze a person down to the atoms, and a rock down to the atoms ... and not surprisingly, I find that both are composed of atoms.  So I conclude, since atoms are primary to their assemblages ... that a rock and a human are one and the same.  In more abstract terms, this is how Pythagoras came up with the idea that there was no material reality either, just numbers (the whole numbers only, starting with one, two ...).  Material analysis aka physics and numerical analysis are both useful disciplines, as an engineer I used both ... but they aren't "Truth".  They are methods, not results.  Scientific method is ... a method, not a result.  Science doesn't produce "Truth" is produces better questions.

So idealists will idealize .. that there is no human doing the experiment, not human thinking the thought (we know this is wrong in QM and psychology).  There was even an attempt in psychology (Behaviorism) to deny that humans had any thoughts, only objectively observable external behaviors ... but while popular in the US during the mid-20th century, this fad faded.  All this abstraction goes back to Plato, anyone who does it is a follower of Plato, who was a philosopher, not a mathematician (like Euclid) nor a scientist (like Aristotle).  Our present day political science however, does go back to Plato's "Republic".

you can play with metaphysics if you want.  I am not into that kind of stuff as a rule.  I mean i'll play around with it so long as  we are honest about what we are doing.

I use what we have around us to describe how the universe works to the best of our ability.  If we have a mechanism, explanation for interactions, and prediction of future interactions we have a more valid claim then if we are missing one or more of those parts.

The claim that "we are part of a system that may be alive" fits observations, explains many events, and will make predictions.  I understand that it is incomplete but so is dark matter and energy.

If you are offering a counter claim, I am all ears. 

I am an atheist, so my claim is not about a literal religious god. 

[TheCloser]

Why is it more valid to claim we are in something alive?  And what does the word 'alive' mean? 

Of course we are part of something bigger.  So what?  We are also part of something much, much smaller (microbes).  So what?  The sun is bigger than me--does that mean the sun is alive?  I am much smaller than a redwood tree; does that constitute some sort of proof of something??? 

You use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?

The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

[Baruch]

you can play with metaphysics if you want.  I am not into that kind of stuff as a rule.  I mean i'll play around with it so long as  we are honest about what we are doing.

I use what we have around us to describe how the universe works to the best of our ability.  If we have a mechanism, explanation for interactions, and prediction of future interactions we have a more valid claim then if we are missing one or more of those parts.

The claim that "we are part of a system that may be alive" fits observations, explains many events, and will make predictions.  I understand that it is incomplete but so is dark matter and energy.

If you are offering a counter claim, I am all ears. 

I am an atheist, so my claim is not about a literal religious god.

Though a theist, I am not literal nor religious.  You are making an argument from Natural Philosophy, circa 1800 ... modern physical science has debunked vitalism and panpsychism.  If you want to discuss this as science, you are wasting your time (unless you are wanting to talk about history of science circa 1800).  If you want to discuss Natural Philosophy ... I am afraid there is no way to escape metaphysics (it is what extends beyond physics).

My theistic POV is yes, the whole of reality (as humans can know it) is both spiritual & irrational.  It is impossible for humans to think outside of their human bias .. and a human is both alive and psychological (maybe in a way plants are not).  All human knowledge, is humanistic, part of the humanities.  The battle between Art and Science is a false battle, science itself is a human art, not something omniscient, omnipresent, eternal (aka G-d).