Thoughts of a Dying Athiest

doesnt scare the crap outta me. ill die happy knowing i had the freedom to believe whatever i wanted to believe
 
Unless you have free will.

I, personally, do not find any meaning in the fact of existence for existence's sake. I understand what you mean though.

For me, if there is no reason for existence except for existing, then existing is simply a matter of chance and ultimately meaningless.

I believe that if you find meaning in existence, as you do, youa re finding meaning in existence seperate from the simple fact of existing, because you are contemplating things outside of simple existence...

If that makes sense...
 
"Simple" is an interesting word to use when describing our existence. But we are completely incapable of comprehending anything outside of our experience, which is necessarily a subset of all things that exist (our experience can't include things that don't exist because then how would we experience them?). So how would I extend my personal "meaning" beyond the realm of "simple" existence?

If anything, I'm contemplating "emotions" or "feelings" which clearly exist, or we wouldn't be feeling them. They exist as a function of our human brains, for whatever reason... I am quite sure they exist as a material process at some level, but whether or not we will ever be able to model them theoretically is irrelevant to this discussion because we at least know they exist.

When I use the functions of abstraction inherent to my brain to concoct an idea of "meaning", I am still firmly within the realm of material human existence... these functions exist in my brain, and are part of what makes me exist as a human being and not as something else. When I use them in this way, nobody can debate that I am finding meaning in existence because "meaning" is a human construct too, and it has a finite human meaning my brain can easily deal with. Like I said, it doesn't have some divine stamp of importance on it.

Besides, imagine for a second that some god created us for a purpose. By what mandate can he just go around handing out cosmic purpose like trick-or-treat candy? Does he have a purpose too? Is that purpose produced by him, or by some other creator responsible for him? And what of that higher creator? What's his purpose, and where did it come from?

In the end, the original "purpose" either has to pop out of a void, or always have existed somewhere. So it's not worth much, is it? It seems like it would have to be a bit arbitrary.

Of course, I'm sure you'll say God is outside our comprehension and somehow that means he can do whatever he wants because he is so totally awesome that we can't comprehend how he works. Great. I can sure find a lot of meaning in that.
 
"Simple" is an interesting word to use when describing our existence. But we are completely incapable of comprehending anything outside of our experience, which is necessarily a subset of all things that exist (our experience can't include things that don't exist because then how would we experience them?). So how would I extend my personal "meaning" beyond the realm of "simple" existence?

If i follow correctly, you imply that "God" would be outside of our experience, and thus we cannot know and find any meaning in its existence. I do not agree. "God", the supernatural, that which exists of its own accord outside of "Nature", in creating the world, but be an integral part of the world. "God" would then not be outside of our comprehension.

The argument for the supernatural, meaning that which goes beyond our perception of Nature as the total system, is a complex one. You should, if you wanted, read the book "Miracles" by CS Lewis. The basic premise is that our human reason cannot be valid by a cause and effect mentality. You mention this later on, that emotions are constructs of your mind, biological happenstance that is useful, as it is still present in us after a supposed long evolution (i suppose this is what you meant?).

Reason cannot be valid given a cause and effect reality, which is what we would have according to predominant theory on the origin of Nature. Reason is valid through the usage of ground/consequent reasoning. Thought cannot be limited to its biological manifestation in the movement of ions across axons to produce a nerve impulse, as reason would no longer be valid. If Reason is limited to the movement of ions, then Reason is not valid, and thus i do not know that it is due to the movement of ions.

In essence, human reason, to even be valid, is due to the supernatural, as it is not part of the system of Nature, as cause and effect cannot produce valid Reason.

Hmm.. I've strayed...

Back to your above argument, i would not believe that we are incapable of comprehending that which is outside of our experience (by the way, whose experience, personal or the total of humanity?). When scientists use theories that have no ground in experience, only in math and logic, to send space shuttles into orbit, they are comprehending something that doesn't fall into anyone's experience.

If anything, I'm contemplating "emotions" or "feelings" which clearly exist, or we wouldn't be feeling them. They exist as a function of our human brains, for whatever reason... I am quite sure they exist as a material process at some level, but whether or not we will ever be able to model them theoretically is irrelevant to this discussion because we at least know they exist.

That emotions are a material process is obvious, because how else would be feel them? The matter in this is defining cause and effect. I have always held the belief that emotions cannot be reduced into their biological manifestation, because that would be a reductive fallacy. The cause of love, anger, sorrow, are not the chemicals coursing through your veins, those are the physical manifestation of the cause, which would be the person, the ego.

When I use the functions of abstraction inherent to my brain to concoct an idea of "meaning", I am still firmly within the realm of material human existence... these functions exist in my brain, and are part of what makes me exist as a human being and not as something else. When I use them in this way, nobody can debate that I am finding meaning in existence because "meaning" is a human construct too, and it has a finite human meaning my brain can easily deal with. Like I said, it doesn't have some divine stamp of importance on it.

Very interesting point. I do not agree that meaning is a human construct however, i believe that it is a human feeling. If it is merely a human construct, it is (oooh, lookout for some hardcore wordplay) meaningless. The thought of meaning does not grant meaning, though the reasoning of it would. However, to reason it, it must have a source. Meaning exists as an outside construct, whether in Nature, that which supposedly exists of its own accord and formed us, or in the supernatural, "God", that which created Nature and exists of its own accord.

The debate for meaning then falls into of of Natural vs Supernatural. Because, if we are constructs of Nature, then meaning exists from Nature, because any musing on the nature of meaning would be inherently issued from this system. If we are constructs of "God", then meaning exists from it.

Besides, imagine for a second that some god created us for a purpose. By what mandate can he just go around handing out cosmic purpose like trick-or-treat candy? Does he have a purpose too? Is that purpose produced by him, or by some other creator responsible for him? And what of that higher creator? What's his purpose, and where did it come from?

We all agree that something must exist of its own accord, independently from anything else. Thus, if "God" exists and created the world and IS that which exists of its own accord, then its purpose is that of being that which exists of its own accord. The bucks stops with God. Hence, all meaning and purpose would be derived from it, and all meaning would be attributed to it, as that which exists.

As for a mandate for comsic purpose, the fact of being the source of purpose is a sufficient one, i would assume.

In the end, the original "purpose" either has to pop out of a void, or always have existed somewhere. So it's not worth much, is it? It seems like it would have to be a bit arbitrary.

Assuming that God created the world, and is also that which exists of its own accord, and thus that which is source of purpose, then being a creature of God would imply purpose out the whazzoo.

That's all i think i have to say. I may have some other things to say, depending on what you respond, that's pretty much as far as i have thought on this one...

I look forward to your response, but at this point, i think i don't much else to say...

Interesting topic...
 
you betcha.

Scientology is a much newer religion, and have yet to cast off their completely rediculous/retarded theories and beliefs such as ray guns or whatever the fuck. Christianity, on the other hand, has had time to ween out their more retarded theories and rules, such as kill your son or daughter if they disrespect you too many times, and shank a bitch for talking smack about God and so on. Public stonings and just about everything else that is fucked up from the old testament have been altered or overshadowed by the powerhouses behind christianity today.

I mean, come on, who now adays can actually believe the earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years old, or that all us humans are directly related due to adam and eve being the only founding human beings.

oh wait, christians.
 
the whole free will and fate thing drastically contradict each other.

man i wanna eat a red apple today, why you may ask, because i can!

but...oh my, i was going to eat the red apple all along!?
 
so lemme see... the things i have already told you about the Old Testament law being made for a certain people for a certain time and being only applicable to that time and situation... you're just gonna throw it away?

sorry if you're a retarded bigot and won't change, but please, stop tossing stuff out that you have been told on time and time before.

By the way, all mitochondrial DNA in humans has been traced back to a single individual, aptly names Eve, who supposedly originated in Africa some time ago... This by scienbtist of all ideological slants.

So, really, you don't believe we all come from some ancient ancestor?

Forgive us Sheldon, for you are too wise for us.

 
uhh...yea I'm pretty sure I just throw away any information from the bible but you're agreeing with me and it's all sassed up.

scientology has created laws and beliefs for a certain people and a certain time. it's got publicity doesn't it? people today eat that up, and soon they'll ween out their completely crap ideologies and it'll be just as cool as christianity some day!
 
this argument can basically be summed up in:

come on man, do you REALLY think there's a little man in the sky controlling everything? do you?

then you say yes and it goes on and on and on
 
Its kinda accepted fact that all life on Earth had to come from one ancestor (I'm talking about LUCA here). That doesn't give credence to any side in my opinion however.

But yeah, I can kinda see the point steezepatrol is trying to get at. Who's to say one belief is 'crazyier' than another? Sure, its crazy compared to your beliefs. But to someone else, it could be perfectly in line. It all depends on you're relevant perspective.
 
"Simple" is an interesting word to use when describing our existence. But we are completely incapable of comprehending anything outside of our experience, which is necessarily a subset of all things that exist (our experience can't include things that don't exist because then how would we experience them?). So how would I extend my personal "meaning" beyond the realm of "simple" existence?

If i follow correctly, you imply that "God" would be outside of our experience, and thus we cannot know and find any meaning in its existence. I do not agree. "God", the supernatural, that which exists of its own accord outside of "Nature", in creating the world, but be an integral part of the world. "God" would then not be outside of our comprehension.

The argument for the supernatural, meaning that which goes beyond our perception of Nature as the total system, is a complex one. You should, if you wanted, read the book "Miracles" by CS Lewis. The basic premise is that our human reason cannot be valid by a cause and effect mentality. You mention this later on, that emotions are constructs of your mind, biological happenstance that is useful, as it is still present in us after a supposed long evolution (i suppose this is what you meant?).

Reason cannot be valid given a cause and effect reality, which is what we would have according to predominant theory on the origin of Nature. Reason is valid through the usage of ground/consequent reasoning. Thought cannot be limited to its biological manifestation in the movement of ions across axons to produce a nerve impulse, as reason would no longer be valid. If Reason is limited to the movement of ions, then Reason is not valid, and thus i do not know that it is due to the movement of ions.

In essence, human reason, to even be valid, is due to the supernatural, as it is not part of the system of Nature, as cause and effect cannot produce valid Reason.

Hmm.. I've strayed...

Back to your above argument, i would not believe that we are incapable of comprehending that which is outside of our experience (by the way, whose experience, personal or the total of humanity?). When scientists use theories that have no ground in experience, only in math and logic, to send space shuttles into orbit, they are comprehending something that doesn't fall into anyone's experience.

If anything, I'm contemplating "emotions" or "feelings" which clearly exist, or we wouldn't be feeling them. They exist as a function of our human brains, for whatever reason... I am quite sure they exist as a material process at some level, but whether or not we will ever be able to model them theoretically is irrelevant to this discussion because we at least know they exist.

That emotions are a material process is obvious, because how else would be feel them? The matter in this is defining cause and effect. I have always held the belief that emotions cannot be reduced into their biological manifestation, because that would be a reductive fallacy. The cause of love, anger, sorrow, are not the chemicals coursing through your veins, those are the physical manifestation of the cause, which would be the person, the ego.

When I use the functions of abstraction inherent to my brain to concoct an idea of "meaning", I am still firmly within the realm of material human existence... these functions exist in my brain, and are part of what makes me exist as a human being and not as something else. When I use them in this way, nobody can debate that I am finding meaning in existence because "meaning" is a human construct too, and it has a finite human meaning my brain can easily deal with. Like I said, it doesn't have some divine stamp of importance on it.

Very interesting point. I do not agree that meaning is a human construct however, i believe that it is a human feeling. If it is merely a human construct, it is (oooh, lookout for some hardcore wordplay) meaningless. The thought of meaning does not grant meaning, though the reasoning of it would. However, to reason it, it must have a source. Meaning exists as an outside construct, whether in Nature, that which supposedly exists of its own accord and formed us, or in the supernatural, "God", that which created Nature and exists of its own accord.

The debate for meaning then falls into of of Natural vs Supernatural. Because, if we are constructs of Nature, then meaning exists from Nature, because any musing on the nature of meaning would be inherently issued from this system. If we are constructs of "God", then meaning exists from it.

Besides, imagine for a second that some god created us for a purpose. By what mandate can he just go around handing out cosmic purpose like trick-or-treat candy? Does he have a purpose too? Is that purpose produced by him, or by some other creator responsible for him? And what of that higher creator? What's his purpose, and where did it come from?

We all agree that something must exist of its own accord, independently from anything else. Thus, if "God" exists and created the world and IS that which exists of its own accord, then its purpose is that of being that which exists of its own accord. The bucks stops with God. Hence, all meaning and purpose would be derived from it, and all meaning would be attributed to it, as that which exists.

As for a mandate for comsic purpose, the fact of being the source of purpose is a sufficient one, i would assume.

In the end, the original "purpose" either has to pop out of a void, or always have existed somewhere. So it's not worth much, is it? It seems like it would have to be a bit arbitrary.

Assuming that God created the world, and is also that which exists of its own accord, and thus that which is source of purpose, then being a creature of God would imply purpose out the whazzoo.

That's all i think i have to say. I may have some other things to say, depending on what you respond, that's pretty much as far as i have thought on this one...

I look forward to your response, but at this point, i think i don't much else to say...

Interesting topic...

hahaha ok this is a tough one to quote but i will do my best.

For the first few paragraphs, I would simply say that I think reason is, in fact, due to cause and effect, as you put it. I think our ability to reason is another function of our brains that has evolved over time.

Whether or not that's "valid" is an interesting question, but I think a meaningless one... if we can reason, and that reason is due to a material process in our brains, who's to say that it isn't valid?

As for the whole "experience" thing, I thought you might take it that way... in the case of the scientist, I would say he is working from his experience of math teachers telling him 1+1=2 all the way up through whatever physics subject he happens to be using to build his rocket. This information comes from human experience too- physics (and even math) is built on the observation of nature, and from that come laws and theories that the scientist learns and uses to allow his spaceship to blast off to wherever it's going.

Without experience in the field of physics, he would have no chance of constructing even the simplest spacecraft. And physics, again, is based on observation and experimentation. Reason allows him to suppose that the laws of gravity, etc. still hold outside the earth's atmosphere and that he could put a spaceship up there by using the knowledge he already has. In that way, it is definitely within his experience.

And concerning emotions- exactly why they happen is not my concern. I'm willing to bet that they exist. I experience them. I experience human emotions because I am human. I believe they are a material process that is inherent to our brains because it was beneficial for our ancestors to feel them. Whether or not we understand them is not really of interest to me (in fact, I'd rather we didn't) but just because we can't currently model them in theory is not enough to convince me that they are a manifestation of some supernatural component of one's self. Occam's razor tells me that the simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

Onwards to "meaning"... I think to say that meaning is meaningless if it is a human construct follows a somewhat tautological line of reasoning. I fail to see any reason why that is so, anyway. All we know about our relationship to the cosmos is that we are human. So if my humanity furnishes me with a concept of "meaning" and my mind tells me that it is something my life has, or something I should work towards, how is that wrong?

Nature is incapable of providing me with meaning unless it can somehow communicate that meaning to me in human terms. In this case, it has produced me, a result of a long chain of causality, has given me a concept of meaning, and has given me the tools to pursue that meaning. That is the only meaning humans can get from nature. The elementary particles that make us up are exactly the same as those one might find in matter anywhere else in the universe. There is nothing special about our building blocks. Only in the complexity and uniqueness of our human structure can we find our meaning.

If our universe was "supernatural" in origin, and somehow God himself has your "true" meaning, then yes, we have meaning as a consequence of being part of that system. But if you can't tell me why God gets to have meaning and we don't without reverting to "because he's god, lol" then I don't see why I should see that argument as a valid one.

If God is that which exists of its own accord, then He is in violation of causality. That cannot happen in our universe. If we try to imagine a world where causality does not apply, we run into a lot of problems. Basically, this world makes no sense to us. Furthermore, I don't necessarily agree that something must exist of its own accord, because I DO agree with you that we don't understand the universe or its origins and that necessarily means that we can't really speculate on what seeded reality based on our limited human knowledge. Who knows what happened.

But if there was a God at the root of all causality, who existed of His own accord, in a strange and utterly alien reality, and if he did imbue our universe with cosmic purpose, then it sure as hell isn't a purpose we can ever understand as human beings. So why is it relevant to us? If we take on a purpose for ourselves, it has to be something we can understand. If we believe in a purpose that we cannot comprehend, then what's our purpose? What's our meaning? You can't tell me, and you never will be able to.

God can either A) be incomprehensible to us and never mean anything to us either or B) be something we can understand and therefore something that is open to our questioning based on the laws of the reality we inhabit. He can't be both. We as humans are incapable of thinking outside our reality. It is neither within the realm of our experience nor within the bounds of everything we could ever hope to experience in the future.

Again, Occam's razor. The universe could either have inherent meaning, or not. We have not observed concrete proof either way, so we could not say that the universe would change at all if we were to flip that switch. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that there is not some flag of supernatural meaning attached to some objects because there is no reason we know of for that to be true, and the "meaningless" case is much simpler.
 
Im dissapointed, because i already covered this on the page... read my post up there.

Sheldon, methinks you have but the tinswyweensiest problem understanding that "God" is not just some old man sitting on a cloud. "God" is that which exists of its own accord. If you can grasp that, then we can move on. But since you're pretty much set against God in... how you say... a disrespectful manner, why don't you go back and talk to your buddies about your intellectual greatness, and leave us to discuss things...

Squeaky, im gonna need to some time to analyze what you wrote.

Already though, reason cannot be valid through cause and effect reasoning, because this does not allow for the effect to in effect actually be true. If valid reason follows from a cause, then reason is mere arbitration. Valid reasoning, and truth, must be derived from something outside of cause and effect. It is essentially the basis of the argument :"if always seen together, then probably correlated". Ground/consequent reasoning is what makes reasnoning valid. And because Nature is supposedly a cause and effect world, then human reasoning being justified cannot be derived from it. That human reasoning from cause and effect could be correct isn't the point: it's the point that it couldn't be trusted. Hence, to know anything, our reasoning must be valid. And since it cannot come from a cause and effect world, it must come from outside the "total system" of Nature...

I really think im doing a horrible job explaining this... If you find the book "Miracles" by CS Lewis, it's part of the first chapters.. You'd like it...

Anyways, im gonna have to look back on that post of yours a bit later...
 
No, I understand what you're saying completely. I just disagree with it. :)

I don't think anyone would say human reason is perfect. I firmly believe that our reason is an abstractive function of our brains that analyzes our experience and allows us to make judgments, predict the outcome of a situation, etc.

It's true that there is nothing "pure" about this. And perhaps that is something to strive for in life. But nobody is a perfect logician. Nobody can make judgments without having a small possibility of error. In part, as Sherlock Holmes might say, because we rarely have enough data to make a fully accurate analysis, but furthermore because our functions of reason are flawed. They can be swayed by our personal biases and emotions and the context of the situation, among other things.

Our ability to reason in the context of the world we live in is shaped by our experiences of that world- our wisdom. I have been trying very hard, but I can't think of an example of human reasoning that doesn't depend on prior experience.
 
I know, just rephrasing to see if I accurately understand him. This has turned into a really cool page, I've spent a half hour just rereading it.
 
I'm not sure if I believe in God or not, I guess it could best be described as agnostic but thats not really it... basically I don't want to believe in God, I really don't think he exists, but I have a hard time saying that and truly believing it because my mom raised me pretty religious... not scared at all though, I dont believe in Heaven or Hell and I guess when it's over it's over.
 
i am tottaly not an werid rocker emo anarchy kid it all but why is hell so bad?i meanseriosly, and i have thought of this also, how do u become a chrustan?is it just believing in god and living life in the grace of god?or is there more 2 it?
 
:P

What i think is funny about your argument about reasoning, is that you challenging reason, while using reason.

If you are, as i think you may be, arguing that no reason is perfect, then you have just lost yourself your own argument, as you cannot use reason to fight against reason...

The essence of the argument for reason not being a cause and effect relationship is thus: if our reason is merely caused by the nature of our brain, and is based on the fact this is simply how our brain happens to work, and not true on a level outside of this concept, then there can be no true knowledge.

Cause and effect reasoning is one of most widely despised things when it comes to an argument. Everyone has at some point wanted to discredit what someone else was arguing simply saying "You think that because you're Christian, a woman, a republican, a democrat...". This implies a direct correlation between the nature of the person and the argument, that the slant of the person (the cause) will produce the following argument regardless of any outside interference. It shows that that persons reasoning, if it is indeed cause and effect, could be true, but only by a fluke. All TRUE reasoning is founded on ground/consequent inferences, and hence, cannot be part of a cause and effect nature.

As for the rest of what you wrote, i get what you're saying, and i simply don't agree as well... I believe i cover what i think in my previous posts...

As for what God is, i would answer b. :P

good thread, i think im out. Tell me if you want something of what i said cleared up...

 
How am I "challenging" reason? I'm doing no such thing. What I'm saying is that reason is a human function and is not "pure", as you seem to think it must invariably be. I don't understand why you think that.

Show me an example of human reasoning, and I will tell you exactly how it is based in human experience and not in some supernatural power we all have for some reason.

Do chimpanzees have your "pure" reason? Or are humans the only ones?

There are basic logical and mathematical laws inherent to our universe. True is not false. False is not true. 1+1=2. These traits give our reason what "purity" it can claim to have.
 
That's not what i understood from what you said:

"I don't think anyone would say human reason is perfect. I firmly believe that our reason is an abstractive function of our brains that analyzes our experience and allows us to make judgments, predict the outcome of a situation, etc.

"

As i expressed in the above post, human reason cannot be simply a construct of our brains, because then its validity is entirely arbitrary.
 
Example of human reasoning:

"I know that A is equal to B. B is also equal to C. Therefore, A is equal to B"

This is not a cause and effect relation.

If you say that this is solely based on human experience, you would not produce reasoning, but expectation. If swan, then white, produces a direct cause and effect relation and is an expectation. It may be valid, but only until someone sees a black swan. The reasoning behind it is not correct...
 
And that's exactly what I think.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be "arbitrary", and I have never seen reason used in a way that made me think even for a second that there we possess some transcendent supernatural ability.

Of course, "arbitrary" isn't how I would describe it, because we're human and it's what we have, but yeah, I guess that's one way of putting it.
 
that song made me really depressed the first time i listened to. i dont see how some 1 could write a rap like that
 
Humans experience many objects that are the same. We are programmed to recognize identical and similar objects because it's an ability that is useful to our survival.

Imagine I have three identical stones. I play with two of them in my hands. I make sure they are exactly the same. Then I swap one out for the third. I immediately recognize that it is the same as the first by comparing it side by side with the second.

This is a property of our universe. We observe it in many cases and formulate the general rule "A=B, B=C, therefore A=C". This form has become widely accepted over thousands of years, since people first started doing symbolic manipulations of this kind.

You could try to explain that general rule I described to a caveman, and even if you spoke the same language as him, you would have trouble. But he is just as human as you. And if you showed him the three rocks and got him to go through that procedure I talked about, he would come to the same exact conclusion you or I would, simply because he has lived in the world and is human.
 
Supernatural nature completely aside, if reason is arbitrary then it cannot be trusted or provide us with any correct reasoning. And since reasoning is what we need to think this way, it cannot be arbitrary but correct on a level outside of a cause and effect system of nature.

It's the same as Dive Command Theory then, that things are good because God says so, so goodness is arbitrary and thus not to be trusted...
 
haha have you ruled out the possibility we could both be completely and utterly wrong...? Because we are both trying to use our reason here... :)

I like to think of human reasoning a little like I would think about a power series approximation of a function. Given that we have an appropriate number of terms in our sum, while it is not the pure function, and will not arrive at an exact answer, it gets pretty damn close. The number of terms is akin to our wisdom and experience in the world and the field in which we are trying to apply our reason.

This is also a good example of how something that is not "pure" can be a very good approximation of the "pure" thing itself (indeed, in practical physics, for instance, approximations of this sort are incredibly useful and practical, not to mention completely necessary). Although, I don't think "pure" reason exists in any form anywhere.
 
There is a difference between this truth being a property of the universe, and us knowing its truth through reasoning.

Also, in my defense, you would believe in evolution, correct? Because then, it would be unfair to use a caveman as an example, because he would precisely be less human than yourself, and i do not believe that humans ever went through this stage.

The problem is proving that by cause and effect means valid reasoning would arise. There is a difference between observing light and knowing light. The person who knows the most about light is not the person how has the best eyes, through natural selection, the person who knows the science and the reasoning... No amount of physical change can affect the reality of the validity of an argument...
 
But we know its truth precisely because it is a property of the universe that is quite obvious to pretty much everyone.

If you don't like the caveman, imagine instead that it's a guy who got left in the woods as a baby and got raised by bears or something. This isn't too far fetched... I've heard of tigers getting raised by pigs. :)

If you don't like that, how about he lived in a box for his whole life. Whatever. They are all going to react the same way to the situation I was talking about. You could probably even find a lot of people in the US who wouldn't follow you if you started talking about A and B and C, anyway...

The idea of evolution (you don't believe in evolution? I thought you did...) is quite important to my argument, though... for instance, I think chimpanzees can perform similar feats of reasoning. A chimpanzee can recognize a piece of straw and therefore reason that, like the last piece of straw it used, it can use it to get bugs out of tree bark. Or something like that. This is a very useful ability for any animal, be it a human or anything else.

And I don't quite follow your last paragraph, but if the fundamental laws of the universe changed, then the validity of arguments like these might indeed go down the drain. Like, if there was no distinction between true and false, things would get a bit messed up. I imagine they would, anyway, because I can't really comprehend a universe like that.
 
But we know its truth precisely because it is a property of the universe that is quite obvious to pretty much everyone.

We may observe it, but we can't prove it and therefore not know it without valid reason. The strength intended by words such as "thus", "therefore" and "hence" cannot actually hold this assuredness if reason is not valid.

If you don't like that, how about he lived in a box for his whole life. Whatever. They are all going to react the same way to the situation I was talking about. You could probably even find a lot of people in the US who wouldn't follow you if you started talking about A and B and C, anyway...

I dunno, really... The whole things deal with a humongous hypothetical that im not sure i fully understand the scope of... I would imagine this feral dude would be able to reason, but at the same time, maybe not? Assuming his mind were developed enough... and screw it, i can't debate this point, because i would just be throwing stuff i have no idea bout out there...Im gonna have to leave that one...

The idea of evolution (you don't believe in evolution? I thought you did...)

I believe in evolution to the extent that we have proven it, which is to say variation of species via natural selection within their own kind. This is what has been observed, documented, proven, not inferred from present data with no reproduction by scientific method. I believe in Darwin's finches and tiger/lion ancestry, but not in fish/amphibian/reptile/bird/mammal ancestry. Not to say it will never be shown to be true, but thus far, we have no scientific method behind it, only inferences from observation in nature of natural selection limited to animal kinds.

is quite important to my argument, though... for instance, I think chimpanzees can perform similar feats of reasoning. A chimpanzee can recognize a piece of straw and therefore reason that, like the last piece of straw it used, it can use it to get bugs out of tree bark. Or something like that. This is a very useful ability for any animal, be it a human or anything else.

That level of reasoning you just mentioned isn't founded on ground/consequent though... That particular example you give is based on experience and expectation, not "the straw is rigid and fits in this hole, and i observe that ants can crawl on them, thus i can use this". Also, at the origin, they wouldn't necessarily have used this method to first try it. If the straw had been in an ant hill, and the chimp picked it up because it had ants on it to eat it, he might have set it back down, and more ants would have gone on it. Then, through experience, not reasoning, he would associate straw on hill/near ants with food...

But again, this is a huge hypothetical...

And I don't quite follow your last paragraph, but if the fundamental laws of the universe changed, then the validity of arguments like these might indeed go down the drain. Like, if there was no distinction between true and false, things would get a bit messed up. I imagine they would, anyway, because I can't really comprehend a universe like that.

I think i meant that if reason is arbitrary, it cannot be trusted., This is the basis to the rebuttal of DCT, so i would imagine it applies here as well.
 
haha, i don't think we're getting anywhere with this lol...

All I can say is that I still think I can trace any process of reasoning back to some experience of the world that reasoner has had (and some useful functions of the brain that allow us to think in abstract terms). Therefore, by Occam's razor (again) I can say that there probably is no supernatural component because it is an unnecessary complication of the situation.

Yes, I'm saying our reason is somewhat arbitrary and not in any way "pure". However, I can still use it to obtain results that make sense and are "reasonable" and useful to me because, like I said, just because I don't think our reason is perfect doesn't mean it can't be pretty damn good if we don't start making wild judgments about what we don't know. Outside of situations humans routinely find themselves in, though, human reason and its results are not much use, mainly because they are just irrelevant to the situation.

You can say that my version of reason doesn't have meaning, and sure, in the cosmic sense, I don't think it has meaning either. But in the human sense, it has meaning because it's how we work and part of what makes us human. That's valid enough for me. I don't find that I have to choose between imagining myself to be cosmically significant or resigning myself to a meaningless existence.

All we really know for sure is that we exist... so our existence should be the most important thing to us, whether or not it turns out to be cosmically "meaningful". I play the hand I'm dealt...
 
part of being an aithiest is accepting that there is nothing after you die. aithiest have overcome that fear. as they are dieing, im sure that they are very practical, but also realize that as soon as they die they will have no more emotion, so they wont be happy or sad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top