The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[Snoopy]

Caricature?

je ne comprends pas...

s.

 

[seattlegal]

je ne comprends pas...

s.

nevermind...

 

[cyberpi]

In that particular model, perhaps not. However that wasn't the model I had in mind with my premise.

Logic is false if the premise is false, correct? So what is your premise and where did it come from again?

Was Aristotle a man that grew from mud? Did his ideas come from mud too? If not, then describe to me the premise that your logic model hinges on. Did your premise come from the mud? If not, then from where? How can anyone test or prove your premise to see if it is true, and thus your logic true?

The logic I presented asked you for the premise: Does mud need further definition? You are welcome to define science and then scientifically study the mud to see if the premise is true.

 

[cyberpi]

I think what I'm trying to get across here is that to use a linear dynamic to explain/prove a non linear reality is not helpful at best.

Can you define non-linear reality for me?

I know what non-linear means in math and physics, but I am left questioning what you mean. Is this another undefined term? I consider non-linear to be a physical term, correct? In other words I, you, and God may or may not be more than physical, but linear and non-linear are both concepts of something physical in this world, correct?

 

[Paladin]

Logic is false if the premise is false, correct? So what is your premise and where did it come from again?

Was Aristotle a man that grew from mud? Did his ideas come from mud too? If not, then describe to me the premise that your logic model hinges on. Did your premise come from the mud? If not, then from where? How can anyone test or prove your premise to see if it is true, and thus your logic true?

The logic I presented asked you for the premise: Does mud need further definition? You are welcome to define science and then scientifically study the mud to see if the premise is true.

Okay, we can play in this ballpark if you wish, though I admit to not understanding your intent.
My original contention was that by asking a theist to define God in his proof, we automatically place him in a dilemma, to define that which by it's claimed nature is undefineable. If I remember correctly the novelist/philosopher Pirsig had a similar problem with his idea of "Quality"
When you introduce the origin of all logic and man as being from mud that seems to be another argument altogether unless I seriously misunderstand your statement. If that is the case I probably need that explained to me, and please do slowly for my benefit?

 

[Paladin]

Can you define non-linear reality for me?

I know what non-linear means in math and physics, but I am left questioning what you mean. Is this another undefined term? I consider non-linear to be a physical term, correct? In other words I, you, and God may or may not be more than physical, but linear and non-linear are both concepts of something physical in this world, correct?

Sorry if this seems confusing cyberpi, that wan't my intent. I was using the term "non-linear dynamic" to refer to an intuitive leap which is not really logical at all. I use the term to avoid the inevitable intellect vs inuitive viewpoint on what might be termed the Absolute. In this I ask forbearance for introducing what must seem to be the mystics way out of the dilemma,for if we are to venture into the non physical our language must become something other than a "first this then that" or "if this then that" kind of communication.

 

[cyberpi]

Okay, we can play in this ballpark if you wish, though I admit to not understanding your intent.
My original contention was that by asking a theist to define God in his proof, we automatically place him in a dilemma, to define that which by it's claimed nature is undefineable. If I remember correctly the novelist/philosopher Pirsig had a similar problem with his idea of "Quality"
When you introduce the origin of all logic and man as being from mud that seems to be another argument altogether unless I seriously misunderstand your statement. If that is the case I probably need that explained to me, and please do slowly for my benefit?

My contention is that by asking an atheist to define where him, his logic, or his ideas came from, that we automatically place him in a dilemma, to define that which by it's claimed nature does NOT sufficiently define him or his logic. But if the atheist claims that he has defined it, measured it, or proved it anyway, then as a theist I shrug and realize that for him god does not require further definition.

Regarding logic and man from mud: I was referring to the origin of the undefined primordial soup, the random variable, the spark, the stir, the causal or the non-causal effect, the innovative leaps, the creativity, the non-linear dynamic, the emptiness, the gray matter, the elite swimmer... whatever it is that the atheist or agnostic comes up with to describe where him and his ideas come from. Such as that from Stanley Miller's experiment (Miller-Urey), or the beliefs written by Charles Darwin. Often stated as science, but I find it is just logic based on a false premise, an undefined premise, or a premise that itself comes from something that nobody can test or prove. Recognizing that, I place the onus squarely back on the atheist.

I modify the example then:
1. Where did you and/or your logic come from?
2. Does your answer sufficiently describe you and your logic so as to not require any further test or definition?
3. If yes, then you do not need God to define himself or to be defined for you.

I had dropped off any reference to God but Seattlegal was too quick to capture it... generally I find people don't like it when others try to externally define them, and I don't think God (swt) is any different. To me he is as real as my wife (or anyone)... and if I were to try to define her then I do so at my own peril.

I was using the term "non-linear dynamic" to refer to an intuitive leap which is not really logical at all. I use the term to avoid the inevitable intellect vs inuitive viewpoint on what might be termed the Absolute.

Ok... non-linear means something quite a bit different to a lot of alledgedly smart people. How about discontinuous? Perhaps meaning something that abruptly arrives or exits, starts or stops, etc... The words discontinuous and dynamic don't really belong together, in my view, but the concept and the math seems to more closely match your other words.

 

[seattlegal]

Alright, I'll throw out some descriptions of "non-linear reality" from various perspectives:

• effects not proportional to causes -->"he who causes to become"
• output not proportional to input -->metaphorical "transistor" effect

Feel free to add more.

 

[Paladin]

You bring up a good point here, aside from the antagonistic tone, about word usage. Had I realized your sensitivity on this point I would have avoided using the term nonlinear altogether, so for that I apologize. The term is used so much in mathematics and physics it is unusual to find it anywhere else, yet it does crop up in sociology as well, such as in this paper: RFI - Symbolic Interactional Theory and Nonlinear Dynamics

My original point was to share an insight into the difficulty a logical approach to the entire atheist/theist conflict could place us. This in no way was to disparage logic, or either side of the debate. Therefore there was no intent to prove rightness or wrongness in any direction. If you so desire, however to create these conditions, I will concede the point now and cut to the chase. It would be so much easier to just be wrong than to continue belaboring a tedious point.

Peace.

 

[17th Angel]

1. Where did you and/or your logic come from?
2. Does your answer sufficiently describe you and your logic so as to not require any further test or definition?
3. If yes, then you do not need God to define himself or to be defined for you.

To me he is as real as my wife (or anyone)... and if I were to try to define her then I do so at my own peril.

1. Having too much intelligence for my own good
2. Yes?
3. I don't believe in a god.

Your own peril? Why will he smite you?

 

[seattlegal]

1. Where did you and/or your logic come from?
2. Does your answer sufficiently describe you and your logic so as to not require any further test or definition?
3. If yes, then you do not need God to define himself or to be defined for you.

1. Having too much intelligence for my own good
2. Yes?
3. I don't believe in a god.

Your own peril? Why will he smite you?

So in that context, yes by all means question, question, question.
even question the method and mode of the question itself. Sound confusing? Yes, quite, even mad in a way, but the conflict resolves itself nicely within the word "humility"

And you were saying, Paladin?

 

[Quahom1]

There is no advantage with being an Athiest.

Still gotta put 'em in the ground when they're dead.

Still gonna cry over the loss of one cared for.

Some will wonder if they'll ever see them again.

Some will live with a heartache and a question...the rest of their lives.

Atheists make it harder on everyone that gives a damn about them, in the end.

 

[cyberpi]

Alright, I'll throw out some descriptions of "non-linear reality" from various perspectives:

• effects not proportional to causes -->"he who causes to become"
• output not proportional to input -->metaphorical "transistor" effect

Feel free to add more.

Very misleading. There is a relationship between inputs and outputs in both linear and non-linear equations or systems. Y=aX is an example of linear. Y=aX^2 is an example of non-linear. For the non-linear example the output is 'proportional' to the input squared. It is deterministic and there is a determined relationship between inputs and outputs. In science there is a fixed and measurable relationship between cause and effect... even though not every input is measurable and known. That is to say for example science says the location that I place my fingers on this keyboard does factor into the resulting gravity for everyone else, whether anyone considers it significant or not.

You bring up a good point here, aside from the antagonistic tone, about word usage. Had I realized your sensitivity on this point I would have avoided using the term nonlinear altogether, so for that I apologize. The term is used so much in mathematics and physics it is unusual to find it anywhere else, yet it does crop up in sociology as well, such as in this paper: RFI - Symbolic Interactional Theory and Nonlinear Dynamics

Define antagonistic tone. If it bothers you that I ask for proof from an atheist, or clear definition of his terms I will stop. I am NOT bothered being asked for proof of God (swt) or definition of terms. So there is no need to apologize. There is no sensitivity to your words and I see it as a puzzle worth the applied thought.

The paper you provided is using the term nonlinear dynamics properly. In differential equations a linear example is Y = a * dX/dt A non-linear example is: Y = a * (dX/dT)^2. In words the equations mean Y is proportional to the speed of X or Y is proportional to the speed of X squared. Nothing magical. The second equation is a non-linear dynamic.

The paper you provided is using the term 'non-linear dynamic' from science correctly. Some non-linear systems get complex from seemingly simple equations. The study of that resulted into chaos theory. Complex systems but nevertheless deterministic systems where the outputs are proportional to some equation of inputs.

There are very real examples in the world but if you do not have the patience to learn the math then I can provide some intuitive examples to understand. Imagine placing a chair in an initial condition so that it rests balanced on one leg. The system is momentarily stable about a very complex set of outcomes. Then someone farts and an air molecule hits the chair and sets it on a path towards lower energy. To know the path the chair with any accuracy is going to take extreme knowledge of nearly every atom of it and its surroundings, especially at the pivot point and friction surfaces. Another example would be a boulder on a hill that is nudged to roll down and start an avalanche. Or a hurricane that was started by something very small. The path and state of that hurricane at any point in time depended on something very small. In most every case there is a potential energy that is being spent in an un-controlled fashion... with feedback. A little positive feedback makes it unstable. For example as the chair fell, the further it fell the harder it was driven away from its initial condition. That is positive feedback. A little force from an air molecule was amplified to a big force.

Amplification is critical to control systems. Another way to understand amplification is the accelerator in your car. Do you wish to drive your car with a hair trigger accelerator so that a remote cosmic ray influences your destination? Do you feel that is your best chance for success? If so then you will be a fan of the non-linear dynamics and chaos (complexity) described in that paper. Do you like to sit tilted on your chair so that it is balanced and might fall backwards? If so then you will be a fan of the non-linear dynamics and chaos (complexity) described in the paper.

Other good examples are pseudo-random number generators or the mandelbrot set. While they utilize recursion they can also be simplified and written out as a single equation. There is a one-to-one relationship between inputs and outputs, but the output is extremely sensitive to the input. Just as the example I provided. Seed the thing with an uncorrelated cosmic ray and you've got something complex driven by something unknown.

In fact stochastic dynamics is probably closer to what you are looking for. In the chair example it is equivalent to saying that nobody knows the trajectory of the air molecules that set the chair into motion, or the exact nature of the friction surfaces that effected its motion, so we call that noise and employ statistical methods to narrow down the trajectory. Or a hurricane where nobody knows the location of every particle, but we know with certainty that it is going to turn clockwise North of the equator as we look down on it from space.

My original point was to share an insight into the difficulty a logical approach to the entire atheist/theist conflict could place us. This in no way was to disparage logic, or either side of the debate. Therefore there was no intent to prove rightness or wrongness in any direction. If you so desire, however to create these conditions, I will concede the point now and cut to the chase. It would be so much easier to just be wrong than to continue belaboring a tedious point.

I was answering to the question you posed in post #61 by providing an example. It is not only harder for the atheist using whatever logic, math, or terms he presents to explain his existance... it too is impossible. The paper you presented tries. It misleads people who are disarmed having not learned the math. When the terms are challenged and the unknown becomes known, that other option always remains.

 

[cyberpi]

1. Having too much intelligence for my own good
2. Yes?
3. I don't believe in a god.

Your own peril? Why will he smite you?

I like your honesty. I choose to be on good terms with my wife. She is known to smite me if I try to define her, because she too has free choice. Maybe she won't smite you?! So recognizing her free choice, I advise you to ask her to define herself. I in no way imply that God (swt) will smite me or you. I simply recognize that many free-wills do not like to be defined to non-existance. My wife, for one, has demonstrated that to me.

 

[seattlegal]

Very misleading. There is a relationship between inputs and outputs in both linear and non-linear equations or systems. Y=aX is an example of linear. Y=aX^2 is an example of non-linear. For the non-linear example the output is 'proportional' to the input squared. It is deterministic and there is a determined relationship between inputs and outputs. In science there is a fixed and measurable relationship between cause and effect... even though not every input is measurable and known. That is to say for example science says the location that I place my fingers on this keyboard does factor into the resulting gravity for everyone else, whether anyone considers it significant or not.

Hey, no one perspective can perfectly illustrate the concept I'm trying to get acrossed. Even several different perspectives cannot capture its true essence. Any attempt to describe it will be less than a shadow. I freely admit that. Even observed effects without discernable causes won't even come close to capturing it, so relax, why don't cha?

I simply recognize that many free-wills do not like to be defined to non-existance. My wife, for one, has demonstrated that to me.

Oh, I heartily agree!

 

[cyberpi]

Hey, no one perspective can perfectly illustrate the concept I'm trying to get acrossed. Even several different perspectives cannot capture its true essence. Any attempt to describe it will be less than a shadow. I freely admit that. Even observed effects without discernable causes won't even come close to capturing it, so relax, why don't cha?

Oh, I heartily agree!

I find that to communicate sometimes means being a conformist, so feel free to define or redefine whatever words, math, or logic that you feel are necessary to communicate the concept that you say you are trying to get acrossed, but also claim that you can't for some lack of quantity of perspectives.

I was relaxed until you described this frustration, but I'll ignore it if you wish.

 

[seattlegal]

I find that to communicate sometimes means being a conformist, so feel free to define or redefine whatever words, math, or logic that you feel are necessary to communicate the concept that you say you are trying to get acrossed, but also claim that you can't for some lack of quantity of perspectives.

I was relaxed until you described this frustration, but I'll ignore it if you wish.

As you wish.

 

[cyberpi]

As you wish.

I wish for you to gain the perspectives, or that your audience gains the perspectives, so that you can communicate whatever you wish to say. Or so that others can explain themselves. I'd say something like, "With God, anything is possible"... but it seems like the wrong thread.

 

[seattlegal]

I wish for you to gain the perspectives, or that your audience gains the perspectives, so that you can communicate whatever you wish to say. Or so that others can explain themselves. I'd say something like, "With God, anything is possible"... but it seems like the wrong thread.

It comes back to this:

You're right, Paladin. Unfortunately, then you are stuck with the "you just need to open your mind to the idea" argument, which is not always well met with hardcore skeptics.

Just as one must open ones eyes in order to see, one must open ones mind in order to understand. That's about as simply and as logically as one can put it.

 

[17th Angel]

I like your honesty. I choose to be on good terms with my wife. She is known to smite me if I try to define her, because she too has free choice. Maybe she won't smite you?! So recognizing her free choice, I advise you to ask her to define herself. I in no way imply that God (swt) will smite me or you. I simply recognize that many free-wills do not like to be defined to non-existance. My wife, for one, has demonstrated that to me.

I said HE not SHE... Will god try to smite you if you attempt to define him??