Just wanted to say I gave you a +1, Anima.

So far, I think you've done a great job addressing the issues, and I like that you are relying on respected academic traditions, rather than trying to skew and twist them to support a forgone conclusion.

(May 27, 2015 at 4:49 pm)Anima Wrote: The short answer is that the catholic belief in god incorporates many aspects of both the philosophical god as well as the logic of prominent philosophers (the most influential of which is Aristotle).

I have a problem with this: that the catholic conception of god encompasses many of the traits you've listed is not surprising, since you've been describing the most basic deist god imaginable; I can't imagine many gods that wouldn't possess those traits. But the catholic god also has many other traits and claims attached to it, and many of those are directly refuted by the evidence available to us, which is kinda important: if a god matches x, y, and z requirements, but also needs requirement w to be true, and that is literally impossible, then obviously that god can't exist, regardless of all the other bits it matches.

Quote:Most of the positions of the catholic church follow from Aristotelian logic (as expressed very well by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologia.  An excellent read I recommend for everyone).

I'm passingly familiar with the Summa Theologica- there's another christian on the boards that just loves it, and so I'll say the same thing to you that I say to him; Aquinas' work, most particularly the Summa Theologica, relies near exclusively on fiat assertions without anything near the level of justification that a claim should require. It may have passed muster as solid thinking during its time, and perhaps it has philosophical significance too, but where it purports to explain objective reality, it's an entirely inappropriate resource, due to its lack of evidence and support for its claims.

Quote:  So an educated catholic may follow the logic nearly the entire way to the end point with a little bit of faith required to make the transcendental jump to the the teleological conclusion.

Why would you do that? Why would you use faith for anything? What's the use of that?

Quote:While I understand the desire for explicit direct empirical proof in all things.  It is readily apparent that there is little explicit direct empirical proof for things (to my knowledge such does not exist for anything which is not axiomatic or tautological).  I would consider it hypocritical to accept implicit circumstantial empirical proof (in accordance with the scientific method established by Aristotle of metaphysical deduction supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence) in any number of fields of philosophical, scientific and legal studies, but not in terms of theology.

You're going to have to define your terms more clearly, I fear; to me, the direct, testable and repeatable evidence that science often brings to bear is explicit, direct empirical proof; without knowing how you differentiate the former category from the latter, it's hard for me to respond, but I will say this: the level of evidence that science provides is far more comprehensive and explicit than anything theology has ever produced, so I fail to see any such hypocrisy in accepting the evidence of science, while dismissing the attempts at it that theology brings to the table. I don't feel that evidentiary support is quite as binary as the two-genre dichotomy you're proposing.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Just wanted to say I gave you a +1, Anima.

So far, I think you've done a great job addressing the issues, and I like that you are relying on respected academic traditions, rather than trying to skew and twist them to support a forgone conclusion.

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Thank you. I appreciate your comments on this and other post strings. And as soon as I figure out how to do things on this site you will definitely get a +1 as well.

(May 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote: I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

There is an "atheistic position" (speaking for myself) and it involves disbelief in your piety towards imaginary beings. It doesn't negate metaphysical possibilities. It merely views them with a mind open to admitting its fallibility.

As to your implied definitions, I find your notions of chemical reactions, meat automatons, and impersonality borderline impious ;-)

---

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: I am stating an imaginary friend is needed for morality.  In the case of the theist that friend is external to their person and commonly referred to as god.

Imaginary friends are by definition of "imaginary" not external... though you are absolutely capable of pretending they are.

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: In the case of an atheist that imaginary person is the self and is commonly referred to in terms of the sentiment of the self or the conscience.

It's a remarkably puzzling phenomenon, isn't it?

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Otherwise the method of ethical conduct to be adopted is utilitarian and will lead to immoral situations.  For example skinning 10 kids alive because it makes 100 people happier than it make the 10 kids miserable.  While supported by utility we would argue this response is not correct.  

Agreed. That's a very unsophisticated utilitarianism you've conjured up.

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Our argument to the incorrectness of this response will be predicated on something other than utility.  For the theist it will be the imaginary guy in the sky.  For the atheist it will be that they do not "feel" it is right.  Which leads me to my initial meat automaton statement how there is no "person" to feel.  Thus the feeling is imaginary or fictitious.

I would rather imagine myself as one of those 10 kids.

---

(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: I understand.  Which is why, by mean of philosophy, I have stated that adopting the position of disbelief without empirical evidence negates the existence of one's own "person".

So you've rejected the somewhat arbitrarily defined boundaries that your brain has recognized as advantageous distinctions between your biological composition and your environment... thus...

(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: Should any of us then hold that we will not engage in action based on utility, but rather upon the belief of our "person" we are forced two accept two things.   

1) We recognize the existence of metaphysical things without empirical evidence; in which case atheism is unfounded. 

No.

(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: 2) We accept that our moral conduct overrides our ethical conduct by means of an appeal to a metaphysical thing where:
A) Atheists hold the metaphysical thing as their person
B) Theists hold the metaphysical thing as something beyond their person.
]Hence, our morality (Atheist and Theist) requires an appeal to a metaphysical (fictitious/imaginary) thing.

No. Atheism allows you to discover or refine the metaphysical thing, theism requires you to accept something that doesn't make much sense but can be presented on simplistic but certainly mythological terms that are made to appear possible while accomplishing nothing and distracting from the issue.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I have a problem with this: that the catholic conception of god encompasses many of the traits you've listed is not surprising, since you've been describing the most basic deist god imaginable; I can't imagine many gods that wouldn't possess those traits. But the catholic god also has many other traits and claims attached to it, and many of those are directly refuted by the evidence available to us, which is kinda important: if a god matches x, y, and z requirements, but also needs requirement w to be true, and that is literally impossible, then obviously that god can't exist, regardless of all the other bits it matches.

I must confess I am unaware of these particular claims that are refuted by evidence. As such I have three questions regarding them 1)would you be so kind as to provide an example or examples (rather than a general assertion) 2) To my knowledge there are few laws in the realm of physics (mostly hypothesis and theories). Which is to say there is little which we take as fact that is not, as you put it, "directly refuted by the evidence available to us." are you saying most hypothesis or theories do not have a set of data in contradiction? 3) If there is a set of facts that "directly refute" a thing may that set of facts constitute an exception and thereby serve as proof of the rule?

(May 28, 2015 at 10:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm passingly familiar with the Summa Theologica- there's another christian on the boards that just loves it, and so I'll say the same thing to you that I say to him; Aquinas' work, most particularly the Summa Theologica, relies near exclusively on fiat assertions without anything near the level of justification that a claim should require. It may have passed muster as solid thinking during its time, and perhaps it has philosophical significance too, but where it purports to explain objective reality, it's an entirely inappropriate resource, due to its lack of evidence and support for its claims.

So... I am supposed to take a passing familiar as being sufficient to justify critical comment on an extensive works lack of justified claims? So if I express my counterpoint assertion to your own based on my extensive study, beyond a passing familiarity, of his works as well as that of many philosophers, scientist, and logicians would you accept it as justified? Or say say I am unjustified in making such an assertion due to bias in favor despite any possible bias against? (At least that is my passing familiar of your passing familiar).

(May 28, 2015 at 10:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why would you do that? Why would you use faith for anything? What's the use of that?

Why use faith for anything? Hmm... I suppose the simple answer is to help you get to the teleological truth of things. Of course it could be said why venture to do anything where the result is not known when where you are and what you know is going to be good enough and have sufficient evidence to be accepted as the place to be.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You're going to have to define your terms more clearly, I fear; to me, the direct, testable and repeatable evidence that science often brings to bear is explicit, direct empirical proof; without knowing how you differentiate the former category from the latter, it's hard for me to respond, but I will say this: the level of evidence that science provides is far more comprehensive and explicit than anything theology has ever produced, so I fail to see any such hypocrisy in accepting the evidence of science, while dismissing the attempts at it that theology brings to the table. I don't feel that evidentiary support is quite as binary as the two-genre dichotomy you're proposing.

A definition desired;to a definition provided. Let us call that which is inductive as implied and that which is deductive as direct. Furthermore let us state what is empirical as physiologically experiential (though empirical is commonly that which is experiential and not necessarily physical) and metaphysical as not physiologically experiential (though experiential still).

Since the hypothesis and theory are ideas and are not physical they may not be empirical. Now if we state, "The scientific method consists of a deductive metaphysical hypothesis supported by inductive empirical evidence abducted to a refined metaphysical theory". We would be stating that the scientific method consists of a direct nonphysical hypothesis supported by implied physiological experiential evidence leading to a nonphysical theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...erizations
"The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle,[87] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_s...empiricism
"Learning about the physical world requires the use of inductive logic..."

Again, the hypothesis and theory are ideas and are not physical/empirical. Now if we were to state, "The scientific method consists of a deductive metaphysical hypothesis supported by deductive empirical evidence abducted to a refined metaphysical theory." We would be stating that the scientific method consist of a direct nonphysical hypothesis supported by direct physiological experiential evidence leading to a nonphysical theory. (I could not find any links in reference to this definition)

Nestor huh? Would that be the Nestor of Homeric fame?

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote: There is an "atheistic position" (speaking for myself) and it involves disbelief in your piety towards imaginary beings. It doesn't negate metaphysical possibilities. It merely views them with a mind open to admitting its fallibility.

As to your implied definitions, I find your notions of chemical reactions, meat automatons, and impersonality borderline impious ;-)

I am not say my imaginary friend is better I am simply saying that for us to make moral decisions we will each appeal to that which lack sufficient direct explicit empirical evidence to meet the general Atheistic requirement for existing.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote: Imaginary friends are by definition of "imaginary" not external... though you are absolutely capable of pretending they are.

I confess "imaginary" to be a misnomer. I do not contend ones person or God is imaginary in fact. But my threshold of proof is not direct explicit empirical evidence. As stipulate many times in this thread I am satisfied with the same level of proof which follows the scientific method (that is circumstantial implicit empirical evidence). When one speaks to the congregation (or the critic) they would be wise to tailor their more controversial statements in a manner they already accept

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: In the case of an atheist that imaginary person is the self and is commonly referred to in terms of the sentiment of the self or the conscience.

It's a remarkably puzzling phenomenon, isn't it?

Puzzling? No. Many theists do the same thing. Take the logic to the point you like and stop. Theists often do this when they attempt to argue intelligent design (which is predicated on the same logic as the homunculus argument leading to infinite regression). Atheist, so far, appear to do it in regards to "proof" (accepting as proven their own person and scientific fact, while subjecting what they do not wish to accept to a level of proof that even their own person and scientific facts could not satisfy.) No shocker there...

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Otherwise the method of ethical conduct to be adopted is utilitarian and will lead to immoral situations.  For example skinning 10 kids alive because it makes 100 people happier than it make the 10 kids miserable.  While supported by utility we would argue this response is not correct.  

Agreed. That's a very unsophisticated utilitarianism you've conjured up.

I did not want to lose the forest for the trees.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Our argument to the incorrectness of this response will be predicated on something other than utility.  For the theist it will be the imaginary guy in the sky.  For the atheist it will be that they do not "feel" it is right.  Which leads me to my initial meat automaton statement how there is no "person" to feel.  Thus the feeling is imaginary or fictitious.

I would rather imagine myself as one of those 10 kids.

You may imagine yourself as one of those kids. However, that would take you down the untenable path of subjective morality which is self contradicting as the other 9 kids and 100 people would opt to skin you according to their subjective morality.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: I understand.  Which is why, by mean of philosophy, I have stated that adopting the position of disbelief without empirical evidence negates the existence of one's own "person".

So you've rejected the somewhat arbitrarily defined boundaries that your brain has recognized as advantageous distinctions between your biological composition and your environment... thus...

I am not sure if this statement was supposed to support any argument in your favor or not. I take it to mean that you are stating the brain has inherent bias in it that it considers advantageous, and that we should stick with those biases . This would be new to the argument, but short lived, as it leads to the argument that anything I have an impression of, whether imaginary or real, is a defined boundary my brain recognizes as advantageous and should be left alone. It sounds like an argument to remain ignorant. Did you intend it to mean something different?

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: Should any of us then hold that we will not engage in action based on utility, but rather upon the belief of our "person" we are forced two accept two things.   

1) We recognize the existence of metaphysical things without empirical evidence; in which case atheism is unfounded. 

No.

Oh!!! I love this game... Yes.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: 2) We accept that our moral conduct overrides our ethical conduct by means of an appeal to a metaphysical thing where:
A) Atheists hold the metaphysical thing as their person
B) Theists hold the metaphysical thing as something beyond their person.
]Hence, our morality (Atheist and Theist) requires an appeal to a metaphysical (fictitious/imaginary) thing.

No. Atheism allows you to discover or refine the metaphysical thing, theism requires you to accept something that doesn't make much sense but can be presented on simplistic but certainly mythological terms that are made to appear possible while accomplishing nothing and distracting from the issue.

It would seem that atheism does not allow you to discover anything due to requiring a level of "proof" that no knowledge seems to satisfy (for further details on that continue enjoying this thread of posts). I would state that you are oversimplifying theism, but then you oversimplified atheism in the beginning of your comments so...Hooray for consistency

(May 29, 2015 at 10:13 am)Anima Wrote: Nestor huh?  Would that be the Nestor of Homeric fame?

Yessir. 

Quote:I am not say my imaginary friend is better  I am simply saying that for us to make moral decisions we will each appeal to that which lack sufficient direct explicit empirical evidence to meet the general Atheistic requirement for existing.

Nah, not really. We may have to appeal to abstract notions of value that are attributable merely to our feelings about experience rather than some objective "good" that exists "out there" in which everyone who perceives the same data will form a similar consensus, though the commonality of our language and experiences can allow us to develop a framework for reaching agreement. The difference between myself and someone who appeals to divine powers is, as I see it, one in which I find definition and demonstration sufficient for establishing a moral standpoint, and deity at best to be redundant, at worst superfluous.

Quote:I confess "imaginary" to be a misnomer.  I do not contend ones person or God is imaginary in fact.  But my threshold of proof is not direct explicit empirical evidence.  As stipulate many times in this thread I am satisfied with the same level of proof which follows the scientific method (that is circumstantial implicit empirical evidence).  When one speaks to the congregation (or the critic) they would be wise to tailor their more controversial statements in a manner they already accept

If by lowering your "threshold of proof" you simply mean that human beings employ concepts derived from both the intellect and the senses, affirming that validity is not located in the external world, then I would contend that "personhood" is a product of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena, and not imaginary in the same sense that "Godhead" is.   

Quote:Puzzling?  No.  Many theists do the same thing.  Take the logic to the point you like and stop.  Theists often do this when they attempt to argue intelligent design (which is predicated on the same logic as the homunculus argument leading to infinite regression).  Atheist, so far, appear to do it in regards to "proof" (accepting as proven their own person and scientific fact, while subjecting what they do not wish to accept to a level of proof that even their own person and scientific facts could not satisfy.)   No shocker there...

We don't have to stop at "homunculus." I'm more than happy to acknowledge that as a theoretical matter the distinct identity conceived as "I" in thought doesn't really exist in the sense that it appears in any given moment. It's more of a practical convention, and one that works at the level of consciousness which our brains evolved to process the environment and to operate as a most critical function within certain spatially separated organisms.

Quote:You may imagine yourself as one of those kids.  However, that would take you down the untenable path of subjective morality which is self contradicting as the other 9 kids and 100 people would opt to skin you according to their subjective morality.

Untenable? I would rather think the reality that we in fact find ourselves in is quite tenable, even necessary as a consequence of perceiving subjects who interact with one another in a world consisting of both objective and subjective components.

Quote:I am not sure if this statement was supposed to support any argument in your favor or not.  I take it to mean that you are stating the brain has inherent bias in it that it considers advantageous, and that we should stick with those biases  .  This would be new to the argument, but short lived, as it leads to the argument that anything I have an impression of, whether imaginary or real, is a defined boundary my brain recognizes as advantageous and should be left alone.  It sounds like an argument to remain ignorant.  Did you intend it to mean something different?

I wasn't making a statement as to whether or not we should stick to those biases. I was just recognizing that we understand them to exist and that much inquiry remains to be taken further.

Quote:Oh!!!  I love this game... Yes.

By all means, please feel free to define my options as you see fit! Just don't expect to always find your opponent in the box you've constructed for your convenience!  

Quote:It would seem that atheism does not allow you to discover anything due to requiring a level of "proof" that no knowledge seems to satisfy (for further details on that continue enjoying this thread of posts).  I would state that you are oversimplifying theism, but then you oversimplified atheism in the beginning of your comments so...Hooray for consistency

Do you mean that if I had read past the first ten pages I would have found an argument of yours that was more compelling? 

(May 28, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Anima Wrote: Generally it is only when a new theory has established the ability to answer known observations in accordance with known theories that we are willing to trust that theory beyond a point of previously known observations.  In which case most theories are not utterly refuted (though some are), but are commonly expanded or work in conjunction with one another.

Correct. It would take quite the paradigm shift to completely overturn a scientific theory, though many older ones are disassembled to the point where their components still function to a limited approximation. For higher accuracy, one turns to more recent, more accurate studies.

(May 28, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Anima Wrote: I am utilizing the theory in a manner that seems to come to a viable answer.  To refute that answer by saying I should stop sticking to old theories and get with the times (argument ad novitatem) is no rebuttal at all.  Otherwise I am equally justified in saying that theory is new and has not been traditionally used and tested (or as tested as the old one) so we cannot use that (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

That's not what I said at all. I asked how you can be certain that older 'theories' carry more wisdom than later writings by virtue of them being older, as you appear to be suggesting?

(May 28, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Anima Wrote: Which sources are  you inquiring about?

Every authority you have cited, from Aristotle to Aquinas.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:10 am)Anima Wrote: To my knowledge there are few laws in the realm of physics (mostly hypothesis and theories).

From the National Center for Science Education:

Quote:

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
  

Laws are science's Lego blocks. The model you build out of them and the diagram describing how it's built and how it works is the theory.

There are many laws in science. Here's an alphabetical list of them.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Laws are science's Lego blocks. The model you build out of them and the diagram describing how it's built and how it works is the theory.

There are many laws in science. Here's an alphabetical list of them.

By laws I meant a theory which has reached the stage of such implicit circumstantial empirical support as to be considered devoid any violating set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

"Description:
Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:
True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)"