JESUS is Overrated

[quote name='chunk']Your position basically boils down to: "This is what I believe and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and not pay attention to any proof otherwise."

You stance is akin to people who believe the earth is flat saying, "Well science has been wrong before and it could be wrong again. Therefore, it is consistent for me to believe the earth is flat." Only yours is worse because mathematics has never been wrong.[/quote]

Your position is that mathematics has never been wrong? In which time period, ancient, middle ages, or modern? Because for any time period, mathematicians/scientists/logicians have made mistakes in their logic, reasoning, and application of theories to the real world. Why do you think people use the cliche "in theory..." --- it's because theory corresponds roughly to real world implications, but then chaos takes over and totally bolloxes up your experiment.

Besides my position is that it is possible that mathematics and science could explain the entire workings of the universe - you are the one who is hanging your hat on a proof in formal logic (Godel's incompleteness theory) that you state proves the existence of the supernatural. At best it proves that any self-referential system cannot prove it's own legitimacy - but hey, tell me something I don't know. Our understanding of logic will have to evolve and adapt to new discoveries anyway - I'm not willing to say it's not possible to describe the workings of the entire universe using science because of a theory in formal logic that's only 30 years old, however clever the theory is.

Our conception of logic, rationalization, and mathematics is still fairly fundamental - just look at chaotic motion or attempts to determine both the position and the momentum of a particle, what pattern can be determined there using modern-day science? I am saying that one day it is possible (indeed in my opinion probable) that we will break through these theories into newer and more interesting puzzles - going forwards (IE formulating new revolutionary scientific theories) instead of backwards (IE your flat earth society followers).

I believe in progress and challenging everything. Sadly, it seems like you want to grasp at theories in an attempt to prove the existence of the "supernatural", even if it means twisting the original findings of that theory.

FYI I used the example of the Pythagoreans only to show how the fundamental truths of one generation of mathematicians and logicians can quickly become archaic beliefs in the next generation. I would argue that Pythagoreans were mathematicians - after all what is the Pythagorean theory if it's not an observation about the pattern of lengths in the sides of a right-angle triangle.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Your position is that mathematics has never been wrong? In which time period, ancient, middle ages, or modern? Because for any time period, mathematicians/scientists/logicians have made mistakes in their logic, reasoning, and application of theories to the real world. Why do you think people use the cliche "in theory..." --- it's because theory corresponds roughly to real world implications, but then chaos takes over and totally bolloxes up your experiment.

Besides my position is that it is possible that mathematics and science could explain the entire workings of the universe - you are the one who is hanging your hat on a proof in formal logic (Godel's incompleteness theory) that you state proves the existence of the supernatural. At best it proves that any self-referential system cannot prove it's own legitimacy - but hey, tell me something I don't know. Our understanding of logic will have to evolve and adapt to new discoveries anyway - I'm not willing to say it's not possible to describe the workings of the entire universe using science because of a theory in formal logic that's only 30 years old, however clever the theory is.

Our conception of logic, rationalization, and mathematics is still fairly fundamental - just look at chaotic motion or attempts to determine both the position and the momentum of a particle, what pattern can be determined there using modern-day science? I am saying that one day it is possible (indeed in my opinion probable) that we will break through these theories into newer and more interesting puzzles - going forwards (IE formulating new revolutionary scientific theories) instead of backwards (IE your flat earth society followers).

I believe in progress and challenging everything. Sadly, it seems like you want to grasp at theories in an attempt to prove the existence of the "supernatural", even if it means twisting the original findings of that theory.

FYI I used the example of the Pythagoreans only to show how the fundamental truths of one generation of mathematicians and logicians can quickly become archaic beliefs in the next generation. I would argue that Pythagoreans were mathematicians - after all what is the Pythagorean theory if it's not an observation about the pattern of lengths in the sides of a right-angle triangle.[/quote]

Mathematics does not adapt to new physical discoveries. Name one instance when a mathematically proven theory has ever been wrong. The pythagoreans insistence that all real numbers are rational was not mathematically proven. It was simply an assumption different from that observed in the real world.

If there was a physical discovery tomorrow that proved that 1+1=5 then it would not mean that 1+1=2 is wrong. It just means that the operation "+" is not the one used in the statement "1+1=2" or the numbers aren't the same. In any case, everything in mathematics is just an extension of the definitions. 1+1=2 is an extension of the definition of "1" "+" and "2". It cannot be wrong because that would mean that the definition is wrong. But the definition is neither right nor wrong, it is simply the definition. So "wrong" really means that the real world simply follows a different definition.

Likewise, the only way that science could explain the entire universe is by changing the definition of what is science.

Basically your saying, "Science will evolve to contradict logic." You can say that, but I'm sure if it were does it will no longer be considered science.

If all scientists around the world suddenly decided that the pope is the ultimate authority on all scientific truth would that mean that science is now religion? No it would simply mean that there are no more scientists to practice science.

You can't just change the definition. The only kind of science that would be able to explain the entire universe would not be science at all.

You are confusing the science with mathematics. Chaotic motions and changing puzzles do not change mathematics. The laws of physics could suddenly change tomorrow such that if you put two apples in a basket you can pull out three apples. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the mathematical facts. 1+1=2 by the definition of "1", "+", and "2". If you want to describe those apples then you need different definitions, but by the old definitions 1+1 will always equal 2. Nothing can ever change that.

Likewise, by the definition of science as the empirical, measured, study of the universe it cannot ever explain everything. The way the universe works is irrelevant to this fact. So surely, our knowledge of the way the universe works is also irrelevant.
 
I was thinking more about what you said and I can understand your perspective in the sense that human error is always a factor. You can never guarantee that anything touched by humans will be 100% of human error.

So in this sense mathematics can be fallible.

However, the proof that the supernatural must exist is at least as strong as the proof of any scientific theory.

If you don't want to believe that the supernatural exists because mathematics is prone to human error then why would you believe any scientific evidence, since that will also be prone to human error?
 
[quote name='chunk']Basically your saying, "Science will evolve to contradict logic." You can say that, but I'm sure if it were does it will no longer be considered science...
[/quote]

Nope I'm saying that our conception of logic will probably not be the same as the conception of logic by people in the far future. Think about the monumental shifts in our perception of logic that people like Aristotle, Descartes, and Steven Hawking made. Just because the logic of today leaves open the possibility of supernatural entities/events, it doesn't mean that the logic of tommorrow will do the same

You are confusing the science with mathematics. Chaotic motions and changing puzzles do not change mathematics. The laws of physics could suddenly change tomorrow such that if you put two apples in a basket you can pull out three apples. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the mathematical facts. 1+1=2 by the definition of "1", "+", and "2". If you want to describe those apples then you need different definitions, but by the old definitions 1+1 will always equal 2. Nothing can ever change that.
Click to expand...

OK you're arguement is going all over the place in this paragraph to the point that I can't follow it.
You state:
1) Mathematics currently can't explain certain scientific phenomena
2) Natural numbers accurately convey the way in which we count items

OK, that's cool. Godel's theory is not natural numbers though. It's a complex proof in formal logic, and it does not equate to real life like "one plus one apple equals two apples".

Likewise, by the definition of science as the empirical, measured, study of the universe it cannot ever explain everything. The way the universe works is irrelevant to this fact. So surely, our knowledge of the way the universe works is also irrelevant.
Click to expand...

OK - we can see UV light (beyond the spectrum of the naked eye), we have sent a huge telescope up in space that can photo black holes, and we have huge semiconductors that can smash atoms apart. These devices have expanded our abilities to percieve the universe and every day we gain more and more scientific knowledge. You're stating that there's a limit to this, because (to paraphrase) even with all of our cool gagetry we still could be just a bunch of brains in jars hooked up to some huge computer that's feeding us sensations. I'd agree that this is true for the time being, but perhaps someone in the future will have a breakthrough like Descartes did that dispels all doubt from our scientific findings - I'm not going to rule that out.

I was thinking more about what you said and I can understand your perspective in the sense that human error is always a factor. You can never guarantee that anything touched by humans will be 100% of human error.

So in this sense mathematics can be fallible.

However, the proof that the supernatural must exist is at least as strong as the proof of any scientific theory.

If you don't want to believe that the supernatural exists because mathematics is prone to human error then why would you believe any scientific evidence, since that will also be prone to human error?
Click to expand...

I don't agree that "the proof that the supernatural must exist is at least as strong as the proof of any scientific theory." If you're using Godel's theory to prove the "supernatural" (because I am assuming you mean more by "supernatural" then just "outside of science"), I say you have a much weaker case then an established, demonstratable scientific theory such as gravity.

I'm just giving science a shot at the big apple of explaining all reality.

My beliefs are really beside the point. However I think you're on to something in your last paragraph that I realized a while back. How can you trust anything, when in the end you will always have an essentially human understanding of the universe? What if everything you beLIEved was a lie? Science, religion, mathematics, philosophy, take your pick it's all subject to the vagaries of human interpretation. As the anonymous quote goes: "Reality" is the only word in the English language that should always be used in quotes.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Nope I'm saying that our conception of logic will probably not be the same as the conception of logic by people in the far future. Think about the monumental shifts in our perception of logic that people like Aristotle, Descartes, and Steven Hawking made. Just because the logic of today leaves open the possibility of supernatural entities/events, it doesn't mean that the logic of tommorrow will do the same[/quote]

And just because the science of today proves that the earth is round that doesn't mean that the science of tomorrow will do the same. :roll: (I know, I know. You don't like the roll eyes. What else am I supposed to do to show that I am illustrating a fallacious argument?)

While what you are saying is true in a philosophical sense, it is against the spirit of science. We live in the now and to the best of our knowledge our current conception of logic is correct.

[quote name='camoor']OK you're arguement is going all over the place in this paragraph to the point that I can't follow it.
You state:
1) Mathematics currently can't explain certain scientific phenomena
2) Natural numbers accurately convey the way in which we count items

OK, that's cool. Godel's theory is not natural numbers though. It's a complex proof in formal logic, and it does not equate to real life like "one plus one apple equals two apples".[/quote]

Your distinction is arbitrary. Why is Godel's theory more "complex" and untrustworthy than a proof that 1+1=2?

You can't turn a blind eye to a proof just because it is outside your area of expertise and, therefore, seems too complicated to be trusted. That is like some rednecks dismissing evolution simply because they are ignorant and don't know anything about biology.

I wasn't saying that mathematics can't explain certain scientific phenomena. In fact, I wouldn't call it science if it couldn't be described with mathematics. I don't know why you say my argument was all over the place in that paragraph. I actually thought that paragraph was quite clear and concise (as opposed to some of my other jumbled up arguments).

[quote name='camoor']OK - we can see UV light (beyond the spectrum of the naked eye), we have sent a huge telescope up in space that can photo black holes, and we have huge semiconductors that can smash atoms apart. These devices have expanded our abilities to percieve the universe and every day we gain more and more scientific knowledge. You're stating that there's a limit to this, because (to paraphrase) even with all of our cool gagetry we still could be just a bunch of brains in jars hooked up to some huge computer that's feeding us sensations. I'd agree that this is true for the time being, but perhaps someone in the future will have a breakthrough like Descartes did that dispels all doubt from our scientific findings - I'm not going to rule that out.[/quote]

I don't agree with your paraphrase. The brains in jars scenario is a specific case, but it isn't the only possibility.

I consider the more likely scenario is that we can study some things in the universe with science and other things we can't.

I don't see what doubt about our current scientific findings has to do with this. Even if we made no mistakes in our current scientific models and we verified that they are 100% correct then science would still not describe everything.

The proof does no cast any doubt on our scientific findings (although there is doubt for the reason that you mention, such as the advancement of human knowledge). It just says that they aren't the whole story.

That is fine if you're not going to rule out the possibility that logic is wrong. However, realize that you take that purely on faith.

[quote name='camoor']I don't agree that "the proof that the supernatural must exist is at least as strong as the proof of any scientific theory." If you're using Godel's theory to prove the "supernatural" (because I am assuming you mean more by "supernatural" then just "outside of science"), I say you have a much weaker case then an established, demonstratable scientific theory such as gravity.

I'm just giving science a shot at the big apple of explaining all reality.

My beliefs are really beside the point. However I think you're on to something in your last paragraph that I realized a while back. How can you trust anything, when in the end you will always have an essentially human understanding of the universe? What if everything you beLIEved was a lie? Science, religion, mathematics, philosophy, take your pick it's all subject to the vagaries of human interpretation. As the anonymous quote goes: "Reality" is the only word in the English language that should always be used in quotes.[/quote]

No I don't mean more than just "outside of science", by supernatural. That is the definition I am using and as far as I know that is basically the same definition that everyone uses. I don't even know how one would define it differently while keeping any overlap with the way the word is commonly used.

I don't know how you could possibly say that gravity is a stronger theory than Godel's. If Godel's theory were incorrect then you could turn gravity on its head. If Godel's theory were incorrect then you could prove that 1+1=6 and or any other statement. In deep space you can verify Godel's theory, but you cannot verify gravity. Godel's theory depends on less externalities. It is certainly a much stronger theory.

I would say that is the fundamental difference between mathematics and science, that mathematics requires an additional level of rigour. All mathematical theories are stronger than all scientific theories. That is why a scientist can use mathematics in his proofs, but a mathematician cannot use science to prove anything because it is not strong enough.

Regarding our human understanding of the universe. I'd rather not get into it because it is a purely philosophical discussion. We can choose to believe that humans experience reality or we can choose not to. However, one choice leads us to a dead end, while the other allows us to find god and discover the mechanics of nature.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of arguing about this, even though I feel like you refuse to listen to reason. In any case, I would be happy if you just agreed that belief in the supernatural can be as rational and reasoned a belief as belief in science, even if you don't agree that it is the only reasonable belief.
 
Godel's theory is in PURE LOGIC. It is not rooted in observations about the real world. However you haven't gotten that for 7+ posts, and it's obvious to me that you're committed to not getting it.

Regarding our human understanding of the universe. I'd rather not get into it because it is a purely philosophical discussion. We can choose to believe that humans experience reality or we can choose not to. However, one choice leads us to a dead end, while the other allows us to find god and discover the mechanics of nature.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know you don't want to get into it - because you know you've lost the arguement before you even begin. Why does questioning the nature of reality lead to a dead end - indeed Descartes' famous a priori truth "I think therefore I am" comes from questioning everything we perceive. Now your true motivation also surfaces - finally the "supernatural" has been given a face, and it is your god. The sad thing is that your belief in your god comes from fear - fear that everything you percieve may be a lie. You are the one putting the fingers in your ears saying "LALALALAL I believe in the supernatural LALALALALALA"

You just don't get it. Belief in the supernatural is not necessarily at odds with trusting scientific observations. However you can't just state that someone is wrong to not believe in supernatural phenomenon. That is their world, and to be honest they have more empirical evidence backing them up then you do.

Here is where you truly lost the arguement BTW:

We can choose to believe that humans experience reality or we can choose not to. However, one choice leads us to a dead end, while the other allows us to find god and discover the mechanics of nature.
Click to expand...

:lol: Finding your version of god by interpreting the experiences of humanity. Why don't you go back to lobbying that creationism be taught in biology class and leave arguements concerning the nature of true reality to the big boys.
 
[quote name='camoor']Godel's theory is in PURE LOGIC. It is not rooted in observations about the real world. However you haven't gotten that for 7+ posts, and it's obvious to me that you're committed to not getting it.[/quote]

I get it, but your missing the point. Pure logic is more real than empirical observations. That is the whole idea. You have it backwards. Empirical observations need to be rooted in logic, not the other way around.

[quote name='camoor']Yeah I know you don't want to get into it - because you know you've lost the arguement before you even begin. Why does questioning the nature of reality lead to a dead end - indeed Descartes' famous a priori truth "I think therefore I am" comes from questioning everything we perceive. Now your true motivation also surfaces - finally the "supernatural" has been given a face, and it is your god. The sad thing is that your belief in your god comes from fear - fear that everything you percieve may be a lie. You are the one putting the fingers in your ears saying "LALALALAL I believe in the supernatural LALALALALALA"

You just don't get it. Belief in the supernatural is not necessarily at odds with trusting scientific observations. However you can't just state that someone is wrong to not believe in supernatural phenomenon. That is their world, and to be honest they have more empirical evidence backing them up then you do. [/quote]

What do you mean I've lost the argument before I even began? It is not questioning the nature of reality that leads to a dead end. It is questioning whether or not we can experience reality that leads to a dead end.

This should be quite obvious. If we can't experience reality then the discussion ends right there. Anything that follows may not be real. No reasoning, logic, experience, empirical observation, nor anything at all holds any water whatsoever. Discussion loses all meaning.

It is a dead end because it does not and can not produce any results. It cannot answer any questions. Indeed, if you follow this line of reasoning you can't even determine whether a question was asked. You can't say "I think therefore I am", because you can't tell if you are even thinking. You can't reason anything. It is a dead end in the most absolute sense. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that it is more of a dead end than any other thought that has ever existed.

You must be kidding. You are the one whose argument hinges on, "well maybe we will find out that our current understanding of logic is wrong in 100 years." How could you possibly say that I am the one putting my fingers in my ears and refusing to face reality?

I can't even believe that you are serious. We didn't even get to what kind of face the supernatural might have because you refuse to believe that logic is fact and that the supernatural even exists. Stop trying to read into my motivations and thoughts and lets talk about the facts. The facts are what are relevant. Not your personal crusade against the idea of god.

I never said that belief in the supernatural is at odds with trusting scientific observations. Have you even read anything I have said? That is exactly what I am trying to prove to you: that belief in the supernatural is NOT at odds with trusting scientific observations.

Perhaps it is too strong to state that someone is wrong to not believe in the supernatural because not everyone defines wrong as "unreasonable and irrational". However I can say that they are unreasonable and irrational because it contradicts logic and reason. Obviously they have more empirical evidence backing them up. That is the definition of supernatural. If it had empirical evidence backing it then it wouldn't be supernatural. However, there is more to fact than merely empirical evidence. Logic and reason are the primary tests for fact, empirical evidence is secondary.

[quote name='camoor']Here is where you truly lost the arguement BTW:

We can choose to believe that humans experience reality or we can choose not to. However, one choice leads us to a dead end, while the other allows us to find god and discover the mechanics of nature.
Click to expand...

:lol: Finding your version of god by interpreting the experiences of humanity. Why don't you go back to lobbying that creationism be taught in biology class and leave arguements concerning the nature of true reality to the big boys.[/quote]

I am absolutely astounded. I give a very thorough logical argument proving the existence of the supernatural. You say you don't believe logic and now as a last resort the only thing you can do is try to stereotype me and personally attack me. I think it should be very clear to anyone reading who lost this argument.

Anyway, I don't know what you were trying to read into my statement, but my point was that if we don't accept that humans can experience reality then we can't think about anything useful. In this case, that is what defines which line of reasoning is correct and which line of reasoning is incorrect. I gave the examples of science and god because these things are useful thoughts that we would miss out on if we didn't believe that humans can experience reality.

I didn't say that you find god (or science) by interpreting the experiences of humanity. I said that you have to believe that humans actually do experience reality as a prerequisite to thought, whether it be thoughts about science or thoughts about god.

If you want to talk about god then first we have to establish whether or not the supernatural exists. However, if you refuse to accept logic as truth then we can't talk about science, we can't talk about the supernatural, and we can't talk about anything other than what you choose to believe.

As a scientists I prefer to base my beliefs on logic, reason, and empirical observation.

Post back here when you want to discuss the facts instead of simply pushing your irrational beliefs and personally attacking me. If you can prove me wrong then stop pussyfooting around and do it. As it stands the only "loophole" you've found in my proof is that logic itself might be false.
 
[quote name='chunk']Post back here when you want to discuss the facts instead of simply pushing your irrational beliefs and personally attacking me. If you can prove me wrong then stop pussyfooting around and do it. As it stands the only "loophole" you've found in my proof is that logic itself might be false.[/quote]

A logical system can never prove it's own validity (it's a question of self-reference) therefore any system including logic cannot be validated as the truth above all other truths.

Why is logic to be held above everything else - in your case it is a question of belief and that's fine as long as you're honest with it.

You're just stating that there is knowledge outside logic and science - I'm blowing that out of the water and stating the truth that almost everything can be doubted.

You also think that doubting almost everything (because there is one simple truth that cannot be doubted - "I think therefore I am") is somehow going to lead to a dead-end. I think that it always leads to the most radical explosion of free thought that exists in our world. I suggest that you broaden your horizons and challenge your assumptions, after all the greatest minds were never those who accepted the status quo.
 
[quote name='camoor']A logical system can never prove it's own validity (it's a question of self-reference) therefore any system including logic cannot be validated as the truth above all other truths.

Why is logic to be held above everything else - in your case it is a question of belief and that's fine as long as you're honest with it.

You're just stating that there is knowledge outside logic and science - I'm blowing that out of the water and stating the truth that almost everything can be doubted.

You also think that doubting almost everything (because there is one simple truth that cannot be doubted - "I think therefore I am") is somehow going to lead to a dead-end. I think that it always leads to the most radical explosion of free thought that exists in our world. I suggest that you broaden your horizons and challenge your assumptions, after all the greatest minds were never those who accepted the status quo.[/quote]

Ok, I agree that you can't prove that the system of logic is correct. However, that just goes to show that there is truth that transcends reason. So analogously to the physical domain where science necessitates the supernatural, in the ethereal domain logic also necessitates transcendental truths.

I would say that both deal a serious blow to whoever believes in strict empiricism. Maybe you don't believe in strict empiricism. However, the only objections I have ever heard to the idea of spirit were on strictly empirical grounds. If you don't believe in strict empiricism and you do object to the idea of spirit then I'd certainly like to hear what your gripe is.

I don't think that your blowing anything out of the water. You can doubt everything. So what? You can program your ipod to keep repeating the word "why" for weeks on end. That doesn't constitute a radical stance, but a degenerative one. I think that by removing the foundation of thought you aren't facilitating an explosion of free thought. On the contrary, I think that removing the foundation of thought stifles new ideas entirely.

For the very reason that we can doubt everything, we have to decide which things are more slippery than others. We have to make a distinction between those things which deserve more doubt than others. Why do we have to? Because otherwise we will just sit on our thumbs all day and then die. By singling out those thoughts which deserve less doubt we give birth to science, mathematics, and religion. Logic is the most basic thing which we can say deserves the minimum doubt.

There is a fine line between genius and insanity, and I think that throwing logic out the window constitutes the latter.

I also wouldn't say that "I think therefore I am" is the most basic of truths. I'm sure you could easily find secluded natives somewhere in the world that lack the ability to even express such an abstract philosophical thought. Logic, on the other hand, is universal. It is the most basic of all human thoughts. There is no person on earth that isn't familiar with it. It is implicit in every human thought.

To answer your question directly, logic is to be held above all else because before you can have any thought you must have logic. Thought is not possible without logic. Therefore, either you must accept logic as the most fundamental truth or forgo all thought. Anyone that claims they don't accept logic, but still attempts to think is only fooling themselves since every thought has a thread of reason.

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing about though. I hope I have made it clear that I am arguing against the strictly empirical worldview (which is often asserted by adamant atheists). What are you arguing against?
 
[quote name='chunk']Ok, I agree that you can't prove that the system of logic is correct. However, that just goes to show that there is truth that transcends reason. So analogously to the physical domain where science necessitates the supernatural, in the ethereal domain logic also necessitates transcendental truths.[/quote]

Where do you prove this "truth that transcends reason" arguement? Why does there have to be one "truth" at all? How did you come by the knowledge that there is only one "truth" that explains everything?

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing about though. I hope I have made it clear that I am arguing against the strictly empirical worldview (which is often asserted by adamant atheists). What are you arguing against?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against anything. You have a belief in the supernatural and a particular god, in addition to giving a nod to the more fundamental proofs in logic and science. Someone else may trust only the sensory information that they can filter through a system of logical thought. Neither view has been completely proven to be "wrong", and it is incorrect to state that you have unassailable proof that the supernatural must exist. Your defense of logic as the source of ultimate truth is one of desparation rather then coherent thought.

A good test of the "doubting everything leads to free thought" arguement is to see if you think Descartes was a revolutionary philosopher. Putting everything into doubt is exactly what Descartes did, and while I disagree with his ultimate conclusions, I feel that humanity benefitted greatly from his observations.

BTW Actually "I think therefore I am" is universal. It is such a fundamental truth that your secluded natives would not even think to question it. Logic, on the other hand, is an aquired skill. A baby doesn't suck on it's mother's teat because it has figured out that her mammary glands secrete milk, it sucks because it is hard-wired to start sucking on any nipple put in it's mouth. Only later will it develop the logical thinking skills that we all need to find sustenence (Such as "Pizza Hut = stuffed crust" :wink: )
 
[quote name='camoor']Where do you prove this "truth that transcends reason" arguement? Why does there have to be one "truth" at all? How did you come by the knowledge that there is only one "truth" that explains everything?[/quote]

The proof that there is truth that transcends reason is the same as the one for the supernatural. Just consider the system of logic itself rather than science. (although I'm not as sure about this one)

The idea of a fixed "truth" is an assumption. However, it is one which is fundamental to science. You can't use science to discover scientific knowledge if you don't believe that there is any knowledge to gain.

[quote name='camoor']I'm not arguing against anything. You have a belief in the supernatural and a particular god, in addition to giving a nod to the more fundamental proofs in logic and science. Someone else may trust only the sensory information that they can filter through a system of logical thought. Neither view has been completely proven to be "wrong", and it is incorrect to state that you have unassailable proof that the supernatural must exist. Your defense of logic as the source of ultimate truth is one of desparation rather then coherent thought.[/quote]

Neither view has been proven wrong because we haven't defined "wrong". However, one view has been proven inconsistent. To trust only sensory information and logic is inconsistent because logic tells you that you need to trust something else. I think your missing the point here. I thought that we were both speaking under the assumption that science is valid. However, it seems that you aren't. Every argument you have against me is equally an argument against science. However, your arguments aren't relevant because the statement I'm trying to prove is "if science is valid, then the supernatural must exist". So if you can prove that the supernatural doesn't exist, but only at the expense of science, then my statement still holds.

If you are trying to disprove the validity of science then I would definitely say that we have entered the realm of philosophy. I don't want to talk about philosophy because in my opinion it just goes in circles and doesn't produce anything useful. Philosophy neglects human intuition and along with that the fundamental intuition that we experience reality. In any case, whether or not we actually experience reality, science depends on this intuition. So if you want to question it then we are no longer talking about science and my whole point is that "if science is valid, then the supernatural must exist."

No doubt my defense of logic is one of desperation rather than coherent thought. However, that is the only way it can be defended. You can refuse to believe that logic is the truth, but then you will be left in the dust while the rest of the world discovers new and useful facts.

I'm not here to argue that science is valid, because I think that most people already accept that.

[quote name='camoor']A good test of the "doubting everything leads to free thought" arguement is to see if you think Descartes was a revolutionary philosopher. Putting everything into doubt is exactly what Descartes did, and while I disagree with his ultimate conclusions, I feel that humanity benefitted greatly from his observations.

BTW Actually "I think therefore I am" is universal. It is such a fundamental truth that your secluded natives would not even think to question it. Logic, on the other hand, is an aquired skill. A baby doesn't suck on it's mother's teat because it has figured out that her mammary glands secrete milk, it sucks because it is hard-wired to start sucking on any nipple put in it's mouth. Only later will it develop the logical thinking skills that we all need to find sustenence (Such as "Pizza Hut = stuffed crust" :wink: )[/quote]

Descartes did not doubt logic. He doubted other things and used logic to consider the consequences. "I think therefore I am" is a logical statement, so it should be obvious that logic is more fundamental.

A baby acting on instinct is not thinking. As soon as thought begins there is logic. Give a reason why you think "I think therefore I am" is universal. I gave a reason why logic is universal (because a thread of reason is present in any thought).

If you aren't arguing against anything then this conversation has no direction (and I think this is pretty obvious by now). I don't have time to philosophize all day. I made my point, and if you don't have a counterpoint point (something you are trying to argue) then I am done.
 
I wanted to drop out of this thread, and I haven't been keeping up, but I found some excellent bible quotes regarding usury. I'd love to see some pro-free market religious Republican type explain their poilitcal inconsistencies with this in mind:

Scripture References to Usury, Interest

(All references are from the New King James Bible)

25 " If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest.
26 "If you ever take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down.
27 "For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious. (Exodus 22:25-27)
----------------

35 ' If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.
36 'Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you.
37 'You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. (Leviticus 25:35-37)
---------------

19 " You shall not charge interest to your brother -- interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest.
20 "To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19,20)
--------------

10 "I also, with my brethren and my servants, am lending them money and grain. Please, let us stop this usury!
11 "Restore now to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their olive groves, and their houses, also a hundredth of the money and the grain, the new wine and the oil, that you have charged them." (Nehemiah 5:10,11)
-------------

5 He who does not put out his money at usury, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved. (Psalm 15:5)
------------

8 One who increases his possessions by usury and extortion Gathers it for him who will pity the poor. (Proverbs 28:8)
-----------

24:1 Behold, the LORD makes the earth empty and makes it waste, Distorts its surface And scatters abroad its inhabitants.
2 And it shall be: As with the people, so with the priest; As with the servant, so with his master; As with the maid, so with her mistress; As with the buyer, so with the seller; As with the lender, so with the borrower; As with the creditor, so with the debtor.
3 The land shall be entirely emptied and utterly plundered, For the LORD has spoken this word. (Isaiah 24:1-3)
-----------

10 Woe is me, my mother, That you have borne me, A man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent for interest, Nor have men lent to me for interest. Every one of them curses me. (Jeremiah 15:10)
----------

7 If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully -- He is just; He shall surely live!" Says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 18:7-9)
---------

13 If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:13)
---------

17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes -- He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! (Ezekiel 18:17)
--------

12 "In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me," says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:12)
---------
14 " For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them.
15 "And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey.
16 "Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents.
17 "And likewise he who had received two gained two more also.
18 "But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord's money.
19 "After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.
20 "So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, 'Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.'
21 "His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'
22 "He also who had received two talents came and said, 'Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.'
23 "His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'
24 "Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed.
25 'And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'
26 "But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed.
27 'So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.
28 'Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.
29 'For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. (Matthew 25:14-29)
---------------

11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.
12 Therefore He said: "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.
13 "So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, 'Do business till I come.'
14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'
15 "And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 "Then came the first, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned ten minas.'
17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.'
18 "And the second came, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned five minas.'
19 "Likewise he said to him, 'You also be over five cities.'
20 "Then another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief.
21 'For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.'
22 "And he said to him, 'Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow.
23 'Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?'
24 "And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.'
25 ("But they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas.')
26 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. (Luke 19:11-26)

***********************
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top