Quote: Can science explain why I decided to kick it?

Evolution. If you had no brain you could not decide to kick it.

(June 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote:Yeah I guess my description is still very broad. It's considerably more plausible than the gods you have mentioned though, right? We could still keep adding attributes that can be tested to see if they violate reason itself.

Mental masturbation is not reason. Reason is the ability to kick your ideas with real tools like scientific method. And the history of scientific method is leaving no room for a deity of any kind.

All I hear you doing here is say "Let me make something up, and see if it works".

You don't simply make something up. You go with prior established data and then work with that with standard established tools to test and falsify it. There has never been any credible data for a god, not even a generic one.

Making things up is how science works to a degree at first. The Bohr model of an atom was 'mental masturbation' to begin with. Niels Bohr literally sat down and defined what an atom would be like. This thread is no different and by the sounds of what you see as problems for a god (which I tend to agree with) has shown me that your threshold is somewhere in the area of a non-material god that doesn't intervene in the universe.

The implication of the OP for you is this: can you give a reason why the god above can't exist and therefore pushing the dial further down the scale?

---

(June 9, 2012 at 10:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote: Can science explain why I decided to kick it?

Evolution. If you had no brain you could not decide to kick it.

Evolution essentially gave me the ability to perform the action. It didn't give me a reason for wanting to kick it.

(June 9, 2012 at 10:44 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Mental masturbation is not reason. Reason is the ability to kick your ideas with real tools like scientific method. And the history of scientific method is leaving no room for a deity of any kind.

All I hear you doing here is say "Let me make something up, and see if it works".

You don't simply make something up. You go with prior established data and then work with that with standard established tools to test and falsify it. There has never been any credible data for a god, not even a generic one.

Making things up is how science works to a degree at first. The Bohr model of an atom was 'mental masturbation' to begin with. Niels Bohr literally sat down and defined what an atom would be like. This thread is no different and by the sounds of what you see as problems for a god (which I tend to agree with) has shown me that your threshold is somewhere in the area of a non-material god that doesn't intervene in the universe.

The implication of the OP for you is this: can you give a reason why the god above can't exist and therefore pushing the dial further down the scale?

There is a HUGE difference between when a scientist guesses and when people pull shit out of their ass. If they had no science knowledge prior to build on, they wouldn't have been able to do that. They were still building on prior established science and still had to use the tool of method to confirm their "guess".

They were still basing it on physics and motion and math.

The Wright brothers simply didn't jump off a cliff and flap their arms.

Once you've invoked an immaterial force how do you go about assigning a measure of plausibility? I think you may be mistaking the plausibility of a concept as a thought exercise with the plausibility of any given "thing"s" existence.

On your scale, birds with 80 foot wing spans would fall where?

Are you entirely sure that nothing in human evolution may have been involved in fostering a desire to kick things........no incentives to assert yourself, engage in a little duty free violence, physical activity, etc?
(and while we're at it, are you entirely certain that you possess any of this "reason" business in the first place, or that such a thing is required to kick a ball? heheheh)

Brian37 Wrote:There is a HUGE difference between when a scientist guesses and when people pull shit out of their ass. If they had no science knowledge prior to build on, they wouldn't have been able to do that. They were still building on prior established science and still had to use the tool of method to confirm their "guess".

They were still basing it on physics and motion and math.

The Wright brothers simply didn't jump off a cliff and flap their arms.

I agree 100%. The difference though between those scientists and this thread is that we're not in the realm of science but of philosophy (note: we're not talking a specific theology either).

What you have to realise is that the truth about something exists whether we like it or not. It's like a tree falling in the forest but no one there to hear it. Did it make a noise? Yes. The truth is no different. You can't be in the presence of truth if one is ignorant much like you can't be in the presence of the tree falling by being somewhere else geographically, but that doesn't mean that the truth isn't there or that the tree didn't make a noise.

Calling these questions 'mental masturbation' doesn't make them go away. It simply means you've let yourself out of the room through ignorance.

The question you are asking here is, essentially, whether or not there exists an actual being ala "god" at least recognizable as such enough to use the term but different enough to be considered an actual being whereas the others are fantasy.

One might ask, why call this "plausible god" (still wondering how we would determine plausibility) a god at all?

(to me, mental masturbation is creating a "question" -which exists only in ones own mind- so that you might find an "answer" -which exists only in ones own mind-. If you want to talk gods and yet simultaneously toss out everything we do know about gods you are merely attempting to create a set of attributes that are "plausible" and then relabeling that set of attributes a "God". You're mulling over a list of attributes, not a god.)

Quote:What you have to realise is that the truth about something exists whether we like it or not

Right, which is why we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Until you can have your "opinion" independently tested and independently verified through peer review, it should rightfully remain such. Otherwise we can all make shit up as we please.

---

Quote:It's like a tree falling in the forest but no one there to hear it. Did it make a noise? Yes. The truth is no different.

We have proven trees exist, and gravity exists, and that vibrations cause noise.

Discussing attributes of a character you have no evidence for would be like speculating about the powers of Spider Man.

No one has proven the existence of any god, much less a generic one.

Brian37 Wrote:3. Why people believe weird things, By Michael Shermer(one I need to get myself)

I haven't read that one, but I have read his latest book, 'The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.' In the introduction he basically says that it is the book he has been working towards his whole life. It's a very good read, and I'll probably read it again. It really nails down how flawed our brains are and how succeptable even extremely intelligent people are to silly beliefs.

(June 9, 2012 at 10:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Once you've invoked an immaterial force how do you go about assigning a measure of plausibility?

Unlike the Most Tangible God, it is plausible because it doesn't contradict anything in the physical world.

Quote: I think you may be mistaking the plausibility of a concept as a thought exercise with the plausibility of any given "thing"s" existence.

Can you elaborate? I know what you mean, but I think it's a pretty grey area where we can't really draw a fine line between a concept and something that exists as described by the concept. The Bohr model of an atom was just a concept.

Quote:On your scale, birds with 80 foot wing spans would fall where?

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. Is the bird divine?? If so, then it would be on the material side of the scale and therefore non-existent because no such bird exists.

Quote:Are you entirely sure that nothing in human evolution may have been involved in fostering a desire to kick things........no incentives to assert yourself, engage in a little duty free violence, physical activity, etc?

Sports are an invention that do indeed have something in common with evolution. We need exercise to be healthy. But my example is supposed to be of an arbitrary nature. How about this: I stand up and sit back down again. Is there a scientific explanation for my motives?

Quote:(and while we're at it, are you entirely certain that you possess any of this "reason" business in the first place, or that such a thing is required to kick a ball? heheheh)

I don't claim to be able to perceive the world perfectly and therefore have 'perfect reasoning' but the fact that I know a few useful things that help me stay alive suggests I can make good choices and therefore am able to 'reason'.

You need 'reason' to be able to kick a ball. If not, then take a soccer player for example. What are the chances that they arbitrarily move in a way that results in a dozen consecutive arbitrary 'bumps' against the ball (i.e. dribbling)? That is highly improbable. It only makes sense that it happens so often because they can reason and therefore move in such a way intentionally.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The question you are asking here is, essentially, whether or not there exists an actual being ala "god" at least recognizable as such enough to use the term but different enough to be considered an actual being whereas the others are fantasy.

Yeah I guess that's one way of putting it.

Quote:One might ask, why call this "plausible god" (still wondering how we would determine plausibility) a god at all?

Because if we defined it and it doesn't contradict reality, then by our own definition it's a god.

Quote:(to me, mental masturbation is creating a "question" -which exists only in ones own mind- so that you might find an "answer" -which exists only in ones own mind-. If you want to talk gods and yet simultaneously toss out everything we do know about gods you are merely attempting to create a set of attributes that are "plausible" and then relabeling that set of attributes a "God". You're mulling over a list of attributes, not a god.)

I think we're in the area of philosophy more than anything. I see the OP as philosophical engineering (a term I coined). I have described a device (the scale) and how it functions. Therefore we can exert some compression forces in the form of rational arguments and see if the device ever buckles.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 11:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote:What you have to realise is that the truth about something exists whether we like it or not

Right, which is why we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Until you can have your "opinion" independently tested and independently verified through peer review, it should rightfully remain such. Otherwise we can all make shit up as we please.

---

Quote:It's like a tree falling in the forest but no one there to hear it. Did it make a noise? Yes. The truth is no different.

We have proven trees exist, and gravity exists, and that vibrations cause noise.

Discussing attributes of a character you have no evidence for would be like speculating about the powers of Spider Man.

No one has proven the existence of any god, much less a generic one.

You've taken my sentences and stripped them of their context and slapped on a new meaning altogether...

I was saying that the truth about something exists whether you want it to or not. I know nothing about biology but that doesn't mean that facts that fall under biology aren't true.

(June 9, 2012 at 11:40 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Unlike the Most Tangible God, it is plausible because it doesn't contradict anything in the physical world.

How would you determine this, if it were immaterial? How do you know when it is or isn't contradicting something in the physical world?

Quote:Can you elaborate? I know what you mean, but I think it's a pretty grey area where we can't really draw a fine line between a concept and something that exists as described by the concept. The Bohr model of an atom was just a concept.

Yet the concept could exist even if it were completely in error, could it not? Apply the same to your "plausible god" proposal.

Quote:I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. Is the bird divine?? If so, then it would be on the material side of the scale and therefore non-existent because no such bird exists.

Nope, it isn;t divine, its completely natural, and birds do exist, biologically and aerodynamically speaking there is no reason that such a bird could not exist..so, on your scale of plausibility, wouldn't my 80 foot bird be even more plausible than your plausible god? Do you see any 80 foot birds laying about?

Quote:Sports are an invention that do indeed have something in common with evolution. We need exercise to be healthy. But my example is supposed to be of an arbitrary nature. How about this: I stand up and sit back down again. Is there a scientific explanation for my motives?

You'd have to actually provide an arbitrary event for us to explain it scientifically, what you have provided is your concept of something arbitrary, which is not scientific, and therefore not something that we would even ask science to explain for us. In the event that you did, and we could not explain it, as per your musing about truth earlier, that doesn't mean that there is no scientific explanation, simply that it is unavailable to us (for whatever reason).

Quote:I don't claim to be able to perceive the world perfectly and therefore have 'perfect reasoning' but the fact that I know a few useful things that help me stay alive suggests I can make good choices and therefore am able to 'reason'.

That you remain alive isn't exactly solid proof of your possessing any reason, now is it? Unless by "possessing reason" you mean "hasn't swallowed a large crayon and remembers to breath".

Quote:You need 'reason' to be able to kick a ball. If not, then take a soccer player for example. What are the chances that they arbitrarily move in a way that results in a dozen consecutive arbitrary 'bumps' against the ball (i.e. dribbling)? That is highly improbable. It only makes sense that it happens so often because they can reason and therefore move in such a way intentionally.

So you need reason to kick a ball in this statement here, just a few breaths after proposing the existence of an arbitrary act? Which one is it going to be? If you can sit down and stand up arbitrarily then a person can kick a ball arbitrarily.