The Agnostic Thread

[Jehan]

some things we just can't explain because there is no actual cause for them, that is what i believe

Sorry, I can't debate with someone who can't agree on the most fundamental logical assumptions.

If you don't think that every effect must have a cause, then I don't think we can really discuss the nature of reality.

just study quantum mechanism a little a you'll find that many things can't be explained with your logical causality.

as Hindu said:"Cause is the effect concealed, effect is the cause revealed"
"Effect is same as cause only."

ok i'm in on this action, couldn't resist, even in quantum mechanics energy is somewhat conserved, even quantum fluctuations consist of energy in the positive and negative variety, or borrowed energy, matter-antimatter pairs and what not, so where do you get the idea that we have infinite energy? you used the dividing matter up infinitely idea before, but what you describe is a series of converging numbers, even though the series is infinite the sum of the series converges to a limit, it does not diverge to infinity, its going to converge like a dog as my lecturer would say, but converge it shall.

[OnlyAmbrose]

i think its perhaps worth mentioning that whatever the logical arguments for theism are....probably dont bother the observers outside of a particular faith tradition. Its the inevitable outcome that occurs when this logical abstraction gets brought into a very real and much less logical expression which occurs in a particular faith. Its very diffcult to remain on the logically abstract level and adhere to particular faith without a large amount of mental gymnastics. Im certainly not saying its impossible, but on the level of logic that i imagine, the type of creator which is discussed is of relatively low import in the practical sense of things....its when things are brought to a particular faith tradition (and often removed more from logic) that many people take issue with what results.

My point wasn't to make a logical argument for theism. Quite to the contrary, I was trying to logically show that it is illogical. However, I also tried to logically show that atheism is illogical.

Fact is, existence in its very self violates logic. You therefore can't turn to a logical explanation for it, because there can't be one!

[got tonkaed]

so i suppose ill bite....what do you propose as an alternative if logic isnt to be trusted...or can logic be trusted for things that are more mundane than determing the nature of existence itself?

[OnlyAmbrose]

so i suppose ill bite....what do you propose as an alternative if logic isnt to be trusted...or can logic be trusted for things that are more mundane than determing the nature of existence itself?

There are four ways of knowing in the theory of knowledge- emotion, perception, reason, and language.

They all fail at some point. When they do, you use others as a crutch. For instance, if you do the classic "blind spot" experiment with a dot on paper, the dot will quite literally disappear. Your perception tells you it's gone, but your reason tells you it's still there, you just don't see it. Perception fails, and reason picks up the slack.

In the case of thinking about the beginning of time, when reason fails, emotion generally takes its place. "I've never felt that there is a god, so I don't believe there is one." Or "I've felt the Holy spirit, so I believe there is a God."

However, both of these, atheism and theism, are arguments of emotion, NOT reason, as atheists would like to believe. Reason does fail- our very existence is proof of that.

[unriggable]

Reason works fine mathematically. Less so in split-second decisions.

[daddy1gringo]

bump.

I bumped this so people could find it since I'm referring to it elsewhere.

[unriggable]

bump.

I bumped this so people could find it since I'm referring to it elsewhere.

You could just give a link.

What happened to the atheist thread?

[daddy1gringo]

bump.

I bumped this so people could find it since I'm referring to it elsewhere.

You could just give a link.

What happened to the atheist thread?

I'm not very computer-friendly and don't know how to do that.

[unriggable]

Code: Select all

[url=http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23812&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0]The Agnostic Thread[/url]

[Anarkistsdream]

so i suppose ill bite....what do you propose as an alternative if logic isnt to be trusted...or can logic be trusted for things that are more mundane than determing the nature of existence itself?

There are four ways of knowing in the theory of knowledge- emotion, perception, reason, and language.

They all fail at some point. When they do, you use others as a crutch. For instance, if you do the classic "blind spot" experiment with a dot on paper, the dot will quite literally disappear. Your perception tells you it's gone, but your reason tells you it's still there, you just don't see it. Perception fails, and reason picks up the slack.

In the case of thinking about the beginning of time, when reason fails, emotion generally takes its place. "I've never felt that there is a god, so I don't believe there is one." Or "I've felt the Holy spirit, so I believe there is a God."

However, both of these, atheism and theism, are arguments of emotion, NOT reason, as atheists would like to believe. Reason does fail- our very existence is proof of that.

Damn, Ambrose... I must say that was a super impressive little speech there.

I find myself agreeing with a majority of it.

[unriggable]

so i suppose ill bite....what do you propose as an alternative if logic isnt to be trusted...or can logic be trusted for things that are more mundane than determing the nature of existence itself?

There are four ways of knowing in the theory of knowledge- emotion, perception, reason, and language.

They all fail at some point. When they do, you use others as a crutch. For instance, if you do the classic "blind spot" experiment with a dot on paper, the dot will quite literally disappear. Your perception tells you it's gone, but your reason tells you it's still there, you just don't see it. Perception fails, and reason picks up the slack.

In the case of thinking about the beginning of time, when reason fails, emotion generally takes its place. "I've never felt that there is a god, so I don't believe there is one." Or "I've felt the Holy spirit, so I believe there is a God."

However, both of these, atheism and theism, are arguments of emotion, NOT reason, as atheists would like to believe. Reason does fail- our very existence is proof of that.

Damn, Ambrose... I must say that was a super impressive little speech there.

I find myself agreeing with a majority of it.

To pick up on this, reason has its slack pulled by mathematics nowadays. The theory of the big bang has some weird twists in it. Gravity, Electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces where, in the first billionth of a second the universe existed, fused into a single force. Now reason tells that's bullshit - its unreasonable. It's just crap. But mathematically, that's it. That's the key. Science in general is like that. Sounds like shit - that's emotion speaking. Reason brings a bit closer but still rejects it. It takes an objective point of view to put it in perspective.

[Snorri1234]

Interresting thread.

[Neoteny]

so i suppose ill bite....what do you propose as an alternative if logic isnt to be trusted...or can logic be trusted for things that are more mundane than determing the nature of existence itself?

There are four ways of knowing in the theory of knowledge- emotion, perception, reason, and language.

They all fail at some point. When they do, you use others as a crutch. For instance, if you do the classic "blind spot" experiment with a dot on paper, the dot will quite literally disappear. Your perception tells you it's gone, but your reason tells you it's still there, you just don't see it. Perception fails, and reason picks up the slack.

In the case of thinking about the beginning of time, when reason fails, emotion generally takes its place. "I've never felt that there is a god, so I don't believe there is one." Or "I've felt the Holy spirit, so I believe there is a God."

However, both of these, atheism and theism, are arguments of emotion, NOT reason, as atheists would like to believe. Reason does fail- our very existence is proof of that.

Mmmm... philosophy...

I'm curious as to what theory of knowledge contains emotion and language. Emotion tends to blind reason in day-to-day life so I don't see any point in conceding emotion any sort of command over my reason for any situation, even those where reason fails us. And language is more of a medium for knowledge than a way of knowing.

And as a note, the blind spot experiment will blow your mind. However, the explanation of why you get the results you do is a darwinian one, and a very important argument against "design theory."

As for the rest of the thread, some of it was painful, some very good. Wish I was around for it. :]