-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Informative Content
-
Cake and eat it too
I think your argument is for people in general.Because the same could be said about science also.People disregard the Bible when it contradicts science.Despite science history of wrong deductions.Science will make a conclusion and everyone is considered stupid if you do not agree with it.No one listens unless another science theory proves it wrong.It ok if that second science theory comes about, but what if it is a conclusion that it is impossible to verify.Then that first conclusion is considered true, without exceptions.Nevertheless, people are people, everyone has different beliefs, thoughts, ideas, values, etc.It is what makes us human.
-
Why expect the sun to rise tomorrow?
@Dee
I think we could generalize the question as: "Why do we think it is logical to reason out the future by considering the past?"
The answer is: That is what logic is. We either understand things by learning the rules they abide, or by observing how things operate to reason out the rules by ourselves. If such rules do not exist, then we will have no way of understanding that concept. We look for patterns, it is how we function.
So, you are asking why logic works the way it does and you are trying to find an answer to this question that is logical. This is why it gets so paradoxical. You cannot get an understanding of logic within logic.
---
BUT, I do agree that we might just be seeing patterns that are not actually there. The reason behind why the universe seems consistent to us might just be that we are creating that pattern ourselves. If you ever have time to waste, I suggest you listen to this talk:
http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html
It is about how you will start to see patterns that are not really there if you look into something(anything) deeply enough. This pattern seeking mechanism seems to have been built inside of us. No matter how we look at the world, we see patterns. Everything seems to be related:
"There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality." -Werner Heisenberg
" (...) All the efforts of the intellectual kinds, are to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology, the man's psychology to the working of the brain, the brain to the neural impulse, the neural impulse to the chemistry and so forth, up and down, both ways." - Richard Feynman
Now, this pattern may as well exist. I do not think we have any way of knowing that for sure. I am only saying that there is a possibility for it to not be there at all. But, ironically, I reached that result by pattern-seeking.
-
The Difference Between Science and Religion
@ZeusAres42
>Generally speaking, in a lot of sciences a concept is what's known as a hypothesis, and they need to understand this in order to be able to test it to see if it is either true or false.
I get that, but we can understand a concept or the reality it is to explain. I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality.
For example, if I think the internal combustion engine runs because nature abhors a vacuum, I may understand my concept very well, but I do not understand internal combustion engines at all.
Concepts are supposed to correctly define reality
-
Abosulte Morality does not work with Theism as well as Atheism
The notion of absolute anything relies on acknowledging the ultimate authority of certain entity. The problem is, what theists see as the ultimate authority, atheists do not.
The role of the authority in virtually all Greek philosophies, which gave birth, in some shape of form, to all modernly dominant philosophies, was played by facts: if something has been deducted to be a fact, then certain objective truths can be derived from that fact. On the other hand, if something is not a fact, then it inherently depends on the individual point of view and, hence, is subjective.
Theists consider God or Gods to be the ultimate authority. But from the atheist point of view, were God/Gods to exist, they would still be merely a part of the world, and hence subject to any facts existing in this world. Just because the God/Gods believe in a certain set of morals does not make them authoritative, because the requirement of them being derived from facts is not met.
As such, theists are not really wrong when they talk about absolute/objective morality; they just recognise a different authority from what modern philosophies recognise. They are wrong, however, in that the vast majority of them do not make this distinction, so they think that they can use the word "objective" in the factual sense - which they cannot. But the most educated theist scholars do seem to be aware of this distinction. -
The Difference Between Science and Religion
@ZeusAres42
Newton's laws are approximately right. But we are absolutely sure that they are technically wrong.
Well, it's not really fair to call them all "wrong". The real issue is with the second one: F = ma. I know that laws one and three have some issues as well but I do not exactly remember why. -
The Difference Between Science and Religion
@AlofRI You seem to be confusing two different definitions of "belief".
"Not believe" means lacking a belief in something therefore you can indeed say that "I do not believe in religion but I am not sure." like you have explained. Because "not believe" is not the same thing as "disbelief".
But just "believe" means "accept". You cannot say "I believe you but I am not sure." because you would be contradicting yourself. You cannot both accept what someone says and not be sure about it.
I think you are mixing up the two definitions of "belief":
1- accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
2- hold (something) as an opinion; think.
We use the second one in our daily speech. But we usually use the first one in philosophy. For example, if you say: "I believe that god exists." or "I believe that the holy book is true." nearly no one will think you are using the second definition. But if you say: "I believe we've already met." everyone will understand that you are using the second definition.
-
Why expect the sun to rise tomorrow?
@piloteerYou say ..... First, I'd like to point out that the idea of "locality" is being dismantled as we speak. Ever since non-locality has been proposed, nobody has been able to refute it, including Einstein (He tried his hardest, but he eventually conceded to Niels Bohr). In the 70s, it was tested, and the results were considered highly plausible that non-locality is the true nature of the universe. The jury is still out on all this, but it seems that not all actions are just reactions of earlier actions. Some may feel uneasy to realize that the universe is not planned, or has any kind of natural order. It's all anarchy. But some may take comfort knowing that their life is not predetermined and free will does exist. I also like to point that out when people try to argue that free will is an illusion (@MayCaesear). As far as I'm concerned, if you wanna prove predeterminism is the true nature of the universe, you need to refute non-locality, or you need to go the long way around and refute the validity of math and science.
My reply ......Interesting piece , out of interest I was doing some research on the topic and came across this on a science blog called Live Science .......
But, as usual, there are a couple of clever paradigms that get around it all, each of which are equally mind-blowing. In one, our old friend the “Many Worlds” theory, zillions of parallel universes are spawned every second, which account for the seeming non-locality of reality. In the other, “history plays itself out not in the three-dimensional spacetime of special relativity but rather this gigantic and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow emerges.”
I have no problem explaining all of these ideas via programmed reality.
Special Relativity has to do with our senses, not with reality. True simultaneity is possible because our reality is an illusion. And there is no speed limit in the truer underlying construct. So particles have no problem being entangled.
Many Worlds can be implemented by multiple instances of reality processes. Anyone familiar with computing can appreciate how instances of programs can be “forked” (in Unix parlance) or “spawned” (Windows, VMS, etc.). You’ve probably even seen it on your buggy Windows PC, when instances of browsers keep popping up like crazy and you can’t kill the tasks fast enough and end up either doing a hard shutdown or waiting until the little bastard blue-screens. Well, if the universe is just run by a program, why can’t the program fork itself whenever it needs to, explaining all of the mysteries of QM that can’t be explained by wave functions.
And then there is “configuration space.” Nothing more complex than multiple instances of the reality program running, with the conscious entity having the ability to move between them, experiencing reality and all the experimental mysteries of Quantum Mechanics.
Hey physicists – get your heads out of the physics books and start thinking about computer science!
You say .......I understand your qualms with rigid indoctrination, but I have two problems with that point of view.
1. Science (especially modern science) is far from rigid. The science of anarchy is very interesting and even a little unnerving.
2. There seems to also be a knee jerk reaction to recklessly reject any objective evidence simply for the sake of rejecting it.
My reply ....I only ever use the term Indoctrination reallyswhen it come to that which cannot or should not be questioned which traditionally was the religious or deeply politicalized type , which is something I would never accuse science of .
Humes basic argument is not irrational as he is stating what we have observed so far gives us no clue as to what will happen in the future, we have no justification for believing these things , I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow I just cannot help myself accepting such , but realistically I shouldn’t believe as it’s irrational to do so
You say ......1. Even the very foundational pillar of what drove the scientific revolution is being turned upside down. The idea of a materialistic universe is slowly being washed away, and being replaced by the idea of an idealistic universe. Idealism (in physics) is the idea that our universe can be influenced or even manipulated based on how WE see or understand it. Materialism stipulates that energy can't be created or destroyed, but the big bang theory poked the first hole in the materialistic point of view by showing ALL energy was created, and it all happened in the same moment. Also non-locality suggests that every thing that exists in the universe is influenced by every other thing in the universe (that's idealistic, not materialistic). The double slit experiment suggests that certain types of matter may know when it's being observed and will act differently because of that (look it up. It's bonkers). That same experiment also suggests that we can influence the past. Dr. James Gates (theoretical physicist) always wondered why we are taught that the smallest thing is an atom. But right after we're told that, we are taught what an atom is made up of. If an atom is made up of other smaller things, then obviously those things are smaller than an atom, so an atom isn't the smallest thing. That made him wonder what the smallest thing actually is. What's the smallest thing that can be considered a thing, without being made up of other things? What he found may make some people want to pull their teeth out of their face. He found that everything that can be considered a thing is made up of ones and zeros. This isn't backwoods science, he's a renowned physicist. When Neil Degrass Tyson pointed out that it's like computer code, he answered, "not only does it seem like computer code, but it's a specific kind of computer code that was created in 1947, and is still in wide use today.
And the kicker to all this is I haven't even gotten to the science of anarchy yet.
2. Scientists don't generally tell people to believe what they say just because they told you so. They would be the first to encourage others to look for themselves. They would encourage people to question everything, but it seems so many people now take that as, don't believe anything. Society is hooked on conspiracies. Some people on here actually believe that the sky is a giant television and everything we see on it was put there by the illuminati. It can be easily demonstrated that that's false, but they won't listen because they "question everything". I don't actually think David Hume was a valid philosopher, he was just a personality. A modern equivalent would be Gore Vidal, or John Stewart. Hume didn't demonstrate how objective reasoning was wrong, he just said, prove it's right, and he felt satisfied with just that. He didn't create the two kinds of knowledge that you talked about, those were philosophical classics. They go back to the Greeks. Hume was just having fun with philosophical dilemmas, but the dilemma of idolizing personalities, and binging on the latest conspiracy is becoming increasingly less fun. The US has a conspiracy personality for it's President now. Mehhhhh!
I don't think anybody actually believes the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today, and rose the day before. Saturn could throw Earth off its rotation which will send it hurtling into space, which in turn will cause the sun not to rise ever again. If that doesn't happen, eventually the sun will burn out. The idea that something will happen in the future because it happened in the past really only applies to the timeframe of a lifetime. Or the timeframe of the existence of a species, or the existence of a solar system. hitler believed the Arian race would rule over the entire earth, which would reign in 1000 years of utopia on earth. 1,000 years, that's it. The Egyptian empire lasted for 3,000 years. We consider the first civilizations to have been created 12,000 years ago. Even the bible has a timeframe for how long heaven will exist, and it's not actually forever. I don't think anybody actually believes in forever. Some scientists believe the universe will and probably already is collapsing in on itself. When people believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it did everyday in the past, therefore it always will in the future, they're probably correct. At least within the timeframe of their life they are.
My reply .....A lot to take in and analyse in this interesting piece and thank you for it.
Regards free will I like philosopher Galen Strawson basic free will argument as in ........
(1) Interested in free action, we are particularly interested in actions that are performed for a reason (as opposed to 'reflex' actions or mindlessly habitual actions).
(2) When one acts for a reason, what one does is a function of how one is, mentally speaking. (It is also a function of one's height, one's strength, one's place and time, and so on. But the mental factors are crucial when moral responsibility is in question.)
(3) So if one is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking—at least in certain respects.
(4) But to be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, one must have brought it about that one is the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects. And it is not merely that one must have caused oneself to be the way one is, mentally speaking. One must have consciously and explicitly chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, and one must have succeeded in bringing it about that one is that way.
(5) But one cannot really be said to choose, in a conscious, reasoned, fashion, to be the way one is mentally speaking, in any respect at all, unless one already exists, mentally speaking, already equipped with some principles of choice, 'P1'—preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals—in the light of which one chooses how to be.
(6) But then to be truly responsible, on account of having chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, one must be truly responsible for one's having the principles of choice P1 in the light of which one chose how to be.
(7) But for this to be so one must have chosen P1, in a reasoned, conscious, intentional fashion.
(8) But for this, i.e. (7), to be so one must already have had some principles of choice P2, in the light of which one chose Pl.
(9) And so on. Here we are setting out on a regress that we cannot stop. True self-determination is impossible because it requires the actual completion of an infinite series of choices of principles of choice.'
(10) So true moral responsibility is impossible, because it requires true self-determination, as noted in (3).
I would be interested in your thoughts on this
-
What Is A Political Belief You Hold?
I adhere to conservatism.
-
justice
@maxx I understand what you are trying to say but you have to realize that the view that you can separate your logic from your human nature is just false.
"a human concept is an idea that we create among us which has little to do with reality" well the thing is, everything is a human concept because we are human. The concept of "concepts" is too a human concept. So, the question is not whether a thing is a human concept or not. The question is whether or not that human concept manages to represent reality in a good enough way.
You made a stronger argument now that you have explained that justice is just humans trying to find a pattern, but you need to remember that "justice" can also be an idea to suggest that bad people deserve bad futures (it is not obligatory for them to have that bad future, they just deserve it). When trying to debunk an idea, you need to go to the core of the idea and show the contradictions in there. I agree with you on this topic but I am just trying to say that you did not make an actual argument against the idea of "justice". -
Is the US today headed for Russia 1917?
MayCaesar said:
In Russia in 1917, it was not about division; it was about the fact that 99% people had nothing to eat, and different political groups offered different solutions to the problem. Some people believed Leninists would be their salvation, while others thought (and turned out to be right) that Leninists would only worsen the crisis.I am unsure of this statement as whole truth; I agree that the people had been in need of food but unsure if they had been denied food as part of a labor demonstration in which food was left to rot in the fields. So, Russia in 1917 was all about division, so much so that as soon as the Royal family was liquidated, not exiled. A series of enslavements took place for the creation of public labor camps to be formed. Self-incriminating the governing powers becoming the state of business for its process of unregulated justice by communist dictatorship in a political party forum.
please keep in mind the moment the communist party undertook the liquidation of The Royal Family it abandon all chance of representation to act as a common defense in posterity for its action against United State Constitution. Honor is a united state which is independent and learned by the people, for the people.
