Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

Read more.

[Siquo]

What specifically?

Perhaps this would shed some light for you: On Complementarity

The principle states that sometimes an object can have several (apparently) contradictory properties. Sometimes we can switch back and forth between the different views, but we can never see both at the same time. But in reality, the figure exists as BOTH at the same time, but we can only perceive or view it one at a time, and never together. For example, we can think of electrons as both a particle or a wave or stream of particles depending on the situation. An object being a particle AND a wave is seemingly mutually exclusive and not possible. But an electron, in some sense, is both at once.

[Kebooo]

Actually, if you have provided no supporting evidence, no proof whatsoever, then it would be highly illogical to believe either of your claims. Even less outlandish claims require substantiation. From a logical perspective, whether or not unicorns or billionaires exist, you must be the one to prove it so. This is why active belief in a negative due to a lack of evidence to the affirmative is moronic. Now, practically speaking, you don't need to tell us that billionaires exist, because we already know that, and specifically proving even the base rudiments of even the simplest arguments is best reserved for philosophy textbooks.

Let me see if I am reading that correctly.  It is highly illogical to believe either of my claims, but moronic to have an active belief that they are untrue?  Thus the only way to be logical and not moronic is to not believe anything.  I'm sure this could go on forever, but this will be my last attempt to show my stance:

I believe you are a human, not a monkey, I believe that is the truth.
I do not believe it has been proven you are a human or that it has been proven the truth or that it can, absolutely, be proven.  You have not even stated you are a human, or not a monkey, yet I believe it.

I believe the Lakers will beat the Thunder in their playoff series, that that is the future truth.
I do not believe it has been proven the Lakers will win, that it is known as an absolute fact they will, and I believe I could be wrong in my belief.

Should I have to say I do not believe the Thunder will win to not be moronic?  I may as well say "I don't believe either way".  I may as well say "I don't believe either way" in every little fact of life down to whether you are a real person or whether I'm just in a permanent lucid dream created by a government. 

I believe god is not real, that he does not exist, that that is the truth of things, despite no absolute evidence or possibility of evidence.
I do not believe god can or has been disproved, I believe I could be wrong about my judgment of the truth of things.

This is one of webster's working definitions of belief:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

I believe we should make a distinction between believing a truth or falsehood, having a hunch or opinion, or confidence in the truth, and feeling absolutely certain of truth.  Otherwise, there is almost nothing at all we can believe in, almost nothing at all we can take as true or false.  Belief, I am saying, does not, nor should it, require absolute certainty and absolute proof. 

[Siquo]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

[RAM]

But man was created in God's image, so there really isn't anything alien to "grasp"...

Of course, picking of christianity is completely unfair, but it does make a point that specific types of god can be proved, according to reason, to be impossible. Of course, if people want to be unreasonable...

[Huesoo]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Have you read any Gurdjieff?

[Earthquake Damage]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Care to explain that?  At first glance it seems to say "I cannot comprehend it, therefore it must be true."

[Siquo]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Care to explain that?  At first glance it seems to say "I cannot comprehend it, therefore it must be true."

No, it means that if you Know, you don't have to Believe. But since you Cannot Know, you must Believe.

And no, I had never heard of Gurdjieff. I googled and just read a small biography of him. What of it?

[Huesoo]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Care to explain that?  At first glance it seems to say "I cannot comprehend it, therefore it must be true."

No, it means that if you Know, you don't have to Believe. But since you Cannot Know, you must Believe.

And no, I had never heard of Gurdjieff. I googled and just read a small biography of him. What of it?

Then you havent lived.

[Siquo]

That good, is he?

I'll read some.

[Urist McOverlord]

Actually, if you have provided no supporting evidence, no proof whatsoever, then it would be highly illogical to believe either of your claims. Even less outlandish claims require substantiation. From a logical perspective, whether or not unicorns or billionaires exist, you must be the one to prove it so. This is why active belief in a negative due to a lack of evidence to the affirmative is moronic. Now, practically speaking, you don't need to tell us that billionaires exist, because we already know that, and specifically proving even the base rudiments of even the simplest arguments is best reserved for philosophy textbooks.

Let me see if I am reading that correctly.  It is highly illogical to believe either of my claims, but moronic to have an active belief that they are untrue?  Thus the only way to be logical and not moronic is to not believe anything.  I'm sure this could go on forever, but this will be my last attempt to show my stance:

I believe you are a human, not a monkey, I believe that is the truth.
I do not believe it has been proven you are a human or that it has been proven the truth or that it can, absolutely, be proven.  You have not even stated you are a human, or not a monkey, yet I believe it.

I believe the Lakers will beat the Thunder in their playoff series, that that is the future truth.
I do not believe it has been proven the Lakers will win, that it is known as an absolute fact they will, and I believe I could be wrong in my belief.

Should I have to say I do not believe the Thunder will win to not be moronic?  I may as well say "I don't believe either way".  I may as well say "I don't believe either way" in every little fact of life down to whether you are a real person or whether I'm just in a permanent lucid dream created by a government. 

I believe god is not real, that he does not exist, that that is the truth of things, despite no absolute evidence or possibility of evidence.
I do not believe god can or has been disproved, I believe I could be wrong about my judgment of the truth of things.

This is one of webster's working definitions of belief:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

I believe we should make a distinction between believing a truth or falsehood, having a hunch or opinion, or confidence in the truth, and feeling absolutely certain of truth.  Otherwise, there is almost nothing at all we can believe in, almost nothing at all we can take as true or false.  Belief, I am saying, does not, nor should it, require absolute certainty and absolute proof. 

I agree that this distinction ought be made, but a further step is that, as my original point goes, we need a distinction between "believing" in a conclusion and "assuming" certain steps necessary to reach that conclusion, steps like "reality is real" and "I am speaking to a human." Fundamentally, there isn't a big difference between "belief" and "assumption" as used above, but one is necessary for logic to work, and the other is highly illogical. Not necessarily wrong, but illogical. Now, if one of the "assumptions" is challenged, even at the basic level, it becomes necesaary to defend them, but they are, just like beliefs, not automatically wrong due to a lack of evidence.

The other argument I made earlier is that a lack of evidence does not prove negation. In an (american) trial, if the prosecution fail to provide adequate evidence, the defendant is not found innocent, but "not (proven) guilty." Similarly, a lack of evidence for the existence of god does not support a belief in no god, it merely fails to support a belief in god.

[Kebooo]

I agree that this distinction ought be made, but a further step is that, as my original point goes, we need a distinction between "believing" in a conclusion and "assuming" certain steps necessary to reach that conclusion, steps like "reality is real" and "I am speaking to a human." Fundamentally, there isn't a big difference between "belief" and "assumption" as used above, but one is necessary for logic to work, and the other is highly illogical. Not necessarily wrong, but illogical. Now, if one of the "assumptions" is challenged, even at the basic level, it becomes necesaary to defend them, but they are, just like beliefs, not automatically wrong due to a lack of evidence.

The other argument I made earlier is that a lack of evidence does not prove negation. In an (american) trial, if the prosecution fail to provide adequate evidence, the defendant is not found innocent, but "not (proven) guilty." Similarly, a lack of evidence for the existence of god does not support a belief in no god, it merely fails to support a belief in god.

But I disagree with the idea assuming evidence is true is required for logic to "work" besides assuming logic is true and reality is accurate.  For example, logic still works even if I doubt evidence you provide that you are only one man and not ten scientists writing posts.  You could provide a picture of one man, you could provide your name, you could have one man come to me and claim that they are you, you could hire one man to post under your account, while I watch them in person.  All evidence that you were one man, yet you still are those ten scientists, being sneaky and deceptive.  So it is not a logical conclusion to believe you are one man because my belief would be in actuality wrong.

You could perhaps argue it is a logical deduction of probability, but as we all know, probability does not create a conclusion backed by absolute truth.  And logic still exists, still works, even if I dispute all of your evidence.  But I wouldn't dispute that evidence because it would seem very bizarre to me that ten scientists would go out of their way to do that.  But no proof exists they wouldn't.  So it must be illogical to positively believe you are one man, but I still do so.  I find the idea of a divine creator equally bizarre and difficult to believe.  Yes, I don't deny the possibility, just like I don't deny the possibility you are ten scientists.  But why must that mean I can't believe in a truth or falsehood?  I just showed it is possible for supporting evidence to be misleading, so it's clear belief's validity does not have to rest on evidence when the evidence's validity can be questioned.

What I'm getting at is that much of our belief is based in "what is more logical" or "what is more reasonable", and not "what, by logic, is proven".  I find the idea of no creator to be more reasonable, and I find an idea of a divine, all powerful creator to be equally reasonable to the idea we are a simulated reality, and I find both of those more reasonable than the idea a million divine unicorn overlords that play dwarf fortress in their divine heavens all day and drink pepsi while yelling out my name and dancing around created us and watch over us.  Must every possibility of divinity, or outside existence of our reality (that can't be measured by us), be seen as equally reasonable?  None have evidence or proof.

[Andir]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Care to explain that?  At first glance it seems to say "I cannot comprehend it, therefore it must be true."

No, it means that if you Know, you don't have to Believe. But since you Cannot Know, you must Believe.

That's an asinine statement that since you cannot know that you MUST believe... if you "Cannot know" all you "Can" is believe.  But in no way do I think you "Must" believe.

[Bauglir]

I agree that this distinction ought be made, but a further step is that, as my original point goes, we need a distinction between "believing" in a conclusion and "assuming" certain steps necessary to reach that conclusion, steps like "reality is real" and "I am speaking to a human." Fundamentally, there isn't a big difference between "belief" and "assumption" as used above, but one is necessary for logic to work, and the other is highly illogical. Not necessarily wrong, but illogical. Now, if one of the "assumptions" is challenged, even at the basic level, it becomes necesaary to defend them, but they are, just like beliefs, not automatically wrong due to a lack of evidence.

The other argument I made earlier is that a lack of evidence does not prove negation. In an (american) trial, if the prosecution fail to provide adequate evidence, the defendant is not found innocent, but "not (proven) guilty." Similarly, a lack of evidence for the existence of god does not support a belief in no god, it merely fails to support a belief in god.

But I disagree with the idea assuming evidence is true is required for logic to "work" besides assuming logic is true and reality is accurate.  For example, logic still works even if I doubt evidence you provide that you are only one man and not ten scientists writing posts.  You could provide a picture of one man, you could provide your name, you could have one man come to me and claim that they are you, you could hire one man to post under your account, while I watch them in person.  All evidence that you were one man, yet you still are those ten scientists, being sneaky and deceptive.  So it is not a logical conclusion to believe you are one man because my belief would be in actuality wrong.

You could perhaps argue it is a logical deduction of probability, but as we all know, probability does not create a conclusion backed by absolute truth.  And logic still exists, still works, even if I dispute all of your evidence.  But I wouldn't dispute that evidence because it would seem very bizarre to me that ten scientists would go out of their way to do that.  But no proof exists they wouldn't.  So it must be illogical to positively believe you are one man, but I still do so.  I find the idea of a divine creator equally bizarre and difficult to believe.  Yes, I don't deny the possibility, just like I don't deny the possibility you are ten scientists.  But why must that mean I can't believe in a truth or falsehood?  I just showed it is possible for supporting evidence to be misleading, so it's clear belief's validity does not have to rest on evidence when the evidence's validity can be questioned.

What I'm getting at is that much of our belief is based in "what is more logical" or "what is more reasonable", and not "what, by logic, is proven".  I find the idea of no creator to be more reasonable, and I find an idea of a divine, all powerful creator to be equally reasonable to the idea we are a simulated reality, and I find both of those more reasonable than the idea a million divine unicorn overlords that play dwarf fortress in their divine heavens all day and drink pepsi while yelling out my name and dancing around created us and watch over us.  Must every possibility of divinity, or outside existence of our reality (that can't be measured by us), be seen as equally reasonable?  None have evidence or proof.

Of course they're not equally reasonable. Neither are they equal to different degrees. We have no evidence or proof of any of them, nor any known situations to compare them to. Their probabilities are undefined, is the point.

[Kebooo]

Of course they're not equally reasonable. Neither are they equal to different degrees. We have no evidence or proof of any of them, nor any known situations to compare them to. Their probabilities are undefined, is the point.

Then I am asking, why are they not equally reasonable?   The probabilities are undefined, of course, I am arguing that human intuition about undefined probability has a role in our belief.  If we cannot measure that which cannot be measured, then how can we call one more reasonable than another?  Clearly there is reason to believe in their possible existence by the mere fact they are possible, so then why aren't my dwarf fortress unicorn gods equally reasonable as a single, divine creator?