PDA

View Full Version : God is not an observable Phenomena



DJ
2001-Nov-30, 07:58 PM
A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena.

I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived.

At what point does one decide to separate the mechanical (i.e. rule driven)nature of our universe and our physics from it's origin, and it's pre-origin?

I've heard many on this board claim that because time does not exist before the big bang, what actually did exist before time, and before the big bang is of no consequence to science. I.E. it is unobtainable to understand via the study of science.

I therefore submit, that science is a bad path to go down. It is limited, and thus cannot describe phenomena at the highest levels. It does not contain understandings, only descriptions. And since it cannot describe everything, it's just not valid. It simply refuses to understand first cause, let alone describe it.

Sounds pretty boring. And that is why, invariably, most discussions on this board TURN TO THEOLOGY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This trend proves to me that everyone believes in some theology, no matter how stout an athiest they must play in their daily roles as scientists. And that means, there must be something to it.

Stars evolve, and we can describe that. Why they evolve, now that's really what interests me.

DJ

Wiley
2001-Nov-30, 08:44 PM
Hmmm...

Let's take this in pieces.



On 2001-11-30 14:58, DJ wrote:
A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena.

I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived.

I would submit the exact opposite is true. People who believe this are only using there senses and are not making unfounded and unsupportable inferences about God or any other demiurge.



At what point does one decide to separate the mechanical (i.e. rule driven)nature of our universe and our physics from it's origin, and it's pre-origin?


I don't think you can. Any philosophy or theology must account for what we know of the universe regardless of if and when the universe was created.



I've heard many on this board claim that because time does not exist before the big bang, what actually did exist before time, and before the big bang is of no consequence to science. I.E. it is unobtainable to understand via the study of science.

I would like you to provide a link to the claim that what happened "before the big bang is of no consequence to science". From what I understand this of utmost importance to cosmologists.



I therefore submit, that science is a bad path to go down. It is limited, and thus cannot describe phenomena at the highest levels. It does not contain understandings, only descriptions. And since it cannot describe everything, it's just not valid. It simply refuses to understand first cause, let alone describe it.


This is just ice-9. Science will never describe everything, but no one ever claimed it would. However to claim its not valid indicates a fundamental misconception of the aims and methods of science. It is the only thing that is valid; it is tested, retested, and retested again. When you go beyond this to the untestable, you have crossed over into theology.



Sounds pretty boring. And that is why, invariably, most discussions on this board TURN TO THEOLOGY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This trend proves to me that everyone believes in some theology, no matter how stout an athiest they must play in their daily roles as scientists. And that means, there must be something to it.


This is an "appeal to the majority" argument, and you should not fall for it. Discussions turning to theology debates is probably due to scientific debates being harder and in theology you can't be proven wrong.



Stars evolve, and we can describe that. Why they evolve, now that's really what interests me.

DJ


"I want to know God's thoughts,... the rest are details..."

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-30, 08:56 PM
On 2001-11-30 14:58, DJ wrote:
A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena.

I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived.

At what point does one decide to separate the mechanical (i.e. rule driven)nature of our universe and our physics from it's origin, and it's pre-origin?

I've heard many on this board claim that because time does not exist before the big bang, what actually did exist before time, and before the big bang is of no consequence to science. I.E. it is unobtainable to understand via the study of science.

I therefore submit, that science is a bad path to go down. It is limited, and thus cannot describe phenomena at the highest levels. It does not contain understandings, only descriptions. And since it cannot describe everything, it's just not valid. It simply refuses to understand first cause, let alone describe it.

Sounds pretty boring. And that is why, invariably, most discussions on this board TURN TO THEOLOGY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This trend proves to me that everyone believes in some theology, no matter how stout an athiest they must play in their daily roles as scientists. And that means, there must be something to it.

Stars evolve, and we can describe that. Why they evolve, now that's really what interests me.

DJ


I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof. If you have it, let's hear it. Although I am a Theist, I do not let my God belief cloud the study of physical science. Your multiple ad-hominem attacks against Theists with other ideas and Atheists are duly noted. So is your miscomprehension of Atheists. What came before the BB is unobservable and therefore out of the pervue of science.

DJ
2001-Nov-30, 09:00 PM
On 2001-11-30 14:58, DJ wrote:
A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena.

I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived.

I would submit the exact opposite is true. People who believe this are only using there senses and are not making unfounded and unsupportable inferences about God or any other demiurge.


But by doing this, you're avoiding a theory of everything. It's called God. You've already eliminated it. It's not unfounded, there are books, supposedly exact transcripts of the supposed creator.



At what point does one decide to separate the mechanical (i.e. rule driven)nature of our universe and our physics from it's origin, and it's pre-origin?

I don't think you can. Any philosophy or theology must account for what we know of the universe regardless of if and when the universe was created.


Exactly, so I've proposed a theory that does account for what we know, and what we have yet to know.



I've heard many on this board claim that because time does not exist before the big bang, what actually did exist before time, and before the big bang is of no consequence to science. I.E. it is unobtainable to understand via the study of science.

I would like you to provide a link to the claim that what happened "before the big bang is of no consequence to science". From what I understand this of utmost importance to cosmologists.


You've got me there. I received these links on the old BA message board. I asked the question "what existed at t-1 second before the big bang" or something to that nature, and for the most part received "doesn't matter" from some of the names I've come to respect on the board -- essentialy, it was sent to null.



I therefore submit, that science is a bad path to go down. It is limited, and thus cannot describe phenomena at the highest levels. It does not contain understandings, only descriptions. And since it cannot describe everything, it's just not valid. It simply refuses to understand first cause, let alone describe it.

This is just ice-9. Science will never describe everything, but no one ever claimed it would. However to claim its not valid indicates a fundamental misconception of the aims and methods of science. It is the only thing that is valid; it is tested, retested, and retested again. When you go beyond this to the untestable, you have crossed over into theology.


What purpose does something serve that cannot be considered "complete," nor ever will be?



Sounds pretty boring. And that is why, invariably, most discussions on this board TURN TO THEOLOGY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This trend proves to me that everyone believes in some theology, no matter how stout an athiest they must play in their daily roles as scientists. And that means, there must be something to it.

This is an "appeal to the majority" argument, and you should not fall for it. Discussions turning to theology debates is probably due to scientific debates being harder and in theology you can't be proven wrong.


Strong disagreement here. It's more than appeal to the masses, it's an observable trend, which quite actually makes it science. Now there's a paradox.



Stars evolve, and we can describe that. Why they evolve, now that's really what interests me.

"I want to know God's thoughts,... the rest are details..."


Would anything else be an honorable pursuit for the epitomy of evolution on this planet?

DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2001-11-30 16:03 ]</font>

DJ
2001-Nov-30, 09:08 PM
I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof. If you have it, let's hear it. Although I am a Theist, I do not let my God belief cloud the study of physical science. Your multiple ad-hominem attacks against Theists with other ideas and Atheists are duly noted. So is your miscomprehension of Atheists. What came before the BB is unobservable and therefore out of the pervue of science.



I have read books of historical evidence which indicate God is the reason for everything. Much too large to quote here. I would use those as support of my argument. Please provide your counter, and if you use the big bang, please describe the processes which existed which caused that as well. I need a complete picture.

Please point out what I have missed with my comments as it relates to: a·the·ist (th-st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Diogenes
2001-Nov-30, 09:29 PM
quote:
" It's not unfounded, there
are books, supposedly exact transcripts of the supposed creator. "..

I believe 'supposed' would be the key operator here..

If you are talking about the Judeao/Christian Bible, some would say it makes the 'Creator of The Universe' look pretty stupid..


The Scientific method works. It has often been abused and misused, but when properly applied it can prove (basic chemistry experiments that can be duplicated over and over, for example)and disprove (cold fusion, for example) the questions the universe presents to us..

If you can prove the 'power of prayer' or 'faith healing' in a double blind experiment, you can collect $1,000,000 (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)... Apparently our great religious leaders would rather continue taking nickels and dimes from their followers than a quick mil from Randi..

(I'm sure I'll get a rebuttal about the evil of tempting God, and why prayer doesn't work for personal gain, or some such..)

Science has the means to provide answers.
Theology attempts to provide answers in the absence of fact.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Diogenes on 2001-11-30 16:29 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-30, 10:09 PM
On 2001-11-30 16:00, DJ wrote:

What purpose does something serve that cannot be considered "complete," nor ever will be?



Goedel proved that any system of mathematics can be either complete or logically consistent, but not both. The mathematics we use every day is (by and large) of the latter type: logically consistent but incomplete (that is, it contains logically well-formed propositions whose truth or falsehood cannot be determined).

I suggest that it is nevertheless of extreme utility, and provides us with everything from electronic communications to medical therapies to space exploration.

I could also mention my house, which is quite useful but, I fear, will never truly be complete. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

In fact, it's science's very incompleteness which is its great strength. It is, by definition, tentative and falsifiable. That means all "unbiased" observers have to agree before even a phenomenon is accepted, let alone a theoretical explanation for that phenomenon. This is just the opposite of religious dogma, and it's undoubtedly the reason that some people of faith have difficulty with it.

This does not mean that all its conclusions are equally shaky, however. Einstein did not make Newton wrong, just extended our knowledge into areas Newton didn't know about. Copernican theory is solid -- despite a few holdouts, we all agree that the Earth is a spheroid and orbits the Sun. But superstring theory is still very uncertain.

Despite your personal certainty about the existence of a god (er, which god is it you refer to?) I'm afraid you will have difficulty convincing many of us. Despite your claim that god is an observable phenomenon, I and others will disagree. If you can suggest a repeatable experiment that unambiguously demonstrates the contrary, I would love to hear of it.

[fixed quote]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-30 17:17 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-30, 10:16 PM
On 2001-11-30 14:58, DJ wrote:
And that is why, invariably, most discussions on this board TURN TO THEOLOGY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This trend proves to me that everyone believes in some theology, no matter how stout an athiest they must play in their daily roles as scientists. And that means, there must be something to it.


Absurd. Even if this claim were true (which it most certainly is not -- there are many threads on this board with no religious overtones) it demonstrates exactly nothing. All it takes is one theist making one post in each thread to turn the discussion to theology.

The notion that 'everybody believes in some kind of theology' is naive, unless your definition of theology is very different from mine. Millions of people reject theism entirely. Millions more are agnostic on the question.

[fixed parentheses]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-30 17:20 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Nov-30, 10:40 PM
To keep this post at a reasonable length, I've edited out the quotes that were two or more posts old.



On 2001-11-30 16:00, DJ wrote:

But by doing this, you're avoiding a theory of everything. It's called God. You've already eliminated it. It's not unfounded, there are books, supposedly exact transcripts of the supposed creator.


No, we are requiring this theory to rest on solid logical shoulders. Claiming your theory is true because it comes from a book, whether its the Bible or The Chariots of The Gods, is a variation of the "appeal to authority" argument and not supportable.



Exactly, so I've proposed a theory that does account for what we know, and what we have yet to know.

But your theory is not falsifiable. This is probably the most important aspect of any theory. If its not falsifiable, how we can tell if it's right or wrong?



What purpose does something serve that cannot be considered "complete," nor ever will be?

Do you like the computer you are currently using? Have you ever had to keep your children from using public pools for fear of polio? Do you have boil your water before you use it? Do prefer to use microwave popcorn? Or do you prefer use an electric stove, which uses power generated 1000 miles away? When was the last you worried about an influenza epidemic?

Science may never answer the big question, Why are we here?", but you gotta admit the side benefits are pretty groovy.



Strong disagreement here. It's more than appeal to the masses, it's an observable trend, which quite actually makes it science. Now there's a paradox.

Noting a trend and how and why it came about is science, sociology. (Sociology can easily denigrate into psuedoscience so we must be wary.) Trying to claim that this trend is correct is an appeal to the majority.

DJ
2001-Nov-30, 11:31 PM
Then, with such an appeal to my senses, I too am at a loss.

As such, I propose a challenge: I will endeavour to study science, including mathematics, physics, and astronomy, to the best of my ability (which I think is fair), and see the results of such, if one of you will study philosophy, theology, and kabbalism.

I'd like to compare notes at the end.

Takers?

DJ /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-30, 11:43 PM
On 2001-11-30 18:31, DJ wrote:
I will endeavour to study science, including mathematics, physics, and astronomy, to the best of my ability (which I think is fair), and see the results of such, if one of you will study philosophy, theology, and kabbalism.


What makes you think that none of us has done so? I think I know a bit about the first two (not at a professional level, perhaps).

I confess that I have limited familiarity with the mystical roots of Judaism, however. Do you think that if I study that, I'll find some repeatably demonstrable evidence for the existence of a god?

Silas
2001-Dec-01, 12:09 AM
On 2001-11-30 18:31, DJ wrote:
Then, with such an appeal to my senses, I too am at a loss.

As such, I propose a challenge: I will endeavour to study science, including mathematics, physics, and astronomy, to the best of my ability (which I think is fair), and see the results of such, if one of you will study philosophy, theology, and kabbalism.

I'd like to compare notes at the end.

Takers?

DJ /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Sign me up... I've studied theology and philosophy to at least a fair degree...

Our senses and our intellect are all we've got...

It has been said that, given a drop of water and nothing else, a rational mind could induce the existence of an Atlantic and a Niagra. Perhaps this is true (although I wonder how, from a single drop of water, one would work out theories of turbulence and aeration/foaming...)

Most youngsters have had the experience of "monsters under the bed," and the smartest kids have gone on to consider, "If I can imagine it, then isn't it somehow real?"

Some have said, if the universe is infinite, then anything that *can* happen *must* happen... (This, in fact, is a variant of Olbers' paradox; it fails because the universe, while perhaps infinite, is also layered and fractal, and so the full realization of the infinite does not need to be expressed...)

The thing that's really scary isn't that we're limited by our senses... The thing that's REALLY scary is that our senses aren't very good either! We're horribly subject to illusions, hallucinations, and other breakdowns of the sensory systems.

(Example: I spent an afternoon visiting friends who hadn't changed the litter in their cat box in far too long. All the rest of the evening, I kept smelling cat-waste. Even when I was at home, hours afterward, I kept smelling cat-waste, and my home has never known the touch of a cat! It was an olfactory hallucination within my own mind. My senses had failed me.)

On another thread, I mentioned a man I once met who refused to accept any evidence that wasn't directly perceptible. That is to say, he refused to accept photographs, telescopes, microscopes, testimony from others, etc. Unless he saw it himself, he didn't believe it. He'd never been to Beijing: he didn't see any reason to believe that Beijing existed. (He didn't see any particular reason to *disbelieve*, but he wasn't willing to commit himself to belief.)

Most of us don't go that far: we can see, with our own eyes, how a magnifying glass makes a small thing look bigger. We can extend that to understand how a microscope makes an invisibly small thing look bigger. It isn't so much a "leap" of faith as it is an "extension" of perceived and understood effects.

No one (to my knowledge) has proposed a perceptual experiment to make spiritual things knowable to us. No one has ever shown us a way to see ghosts, gods, angels, devils, heavens, hells, souls, or magic. No one has even proposed the most basic working definitions of these things.

(Well, yes, Rene Descartes once surmised that the soul might interface with the brain through the pineal gland... At least that suggests an experimental regime that could bear on the issue...)

Science is an organized system of *finding out.* Theology is a philosophical system of suggesting possibilities. Both are wonderful; both are fun.

Silas

Azpod
2001-Dec-01, 12:44 AM
On 2001-11-30 17:16, Donnie B. wrote:
The notion that 'everybody believes in some kind of theology' is naive, unless your definition of theology is very different from mine. Millions of people reject theism entirely. Millions more are agnostic on the question.


My only thought on this debate is that that people, thiests and athiests alike, must have faith to believe in a god (whatever form he/she/it may take) or to not believe in any god. I disagree that the existance of God is not an observable phenomenon. There are millions of people who believe that they have observed miracles, and have seen some sort of supernatural entity at work in their lives.

However, the existence of God is not a testable phenomenon. While one person may believe that a series of events is a miracle, another could look at the same series of events as statistical aberration. One must have faith to believe that the events are proof of God existance; one must also have faith to believe that there is no God, and that the events must have a emperical explination.

SAMU
2001-Dec-01, 04:09 AM
My two gluons worth here.

I haven't read anyone mention that ALL science begins with intuition. Did Einstien know that he would describe reletivity when he began considering weather it could be described? What if he failed to compleate his description? Does his in fact incomplete description show the failing of science? Or does it truly show the utility of the gift of attempting to describe the indescribable? Do we now, considering with all the tools of consideration at our command, any unknown know what the result of consideration will be? We begin with intuition. We apply science. And the result is ???

SAMU

PS

For those who miss the point. The above IS an observable phenomenon. Has been observed for thousands of years. I am not the first to write on this. Just because a thing can not be described as of yet does not meen that the phenomenon is not observed by some. Sometimes the observations of stark raving lunatics are followed up to be discovered to be amoung the most profound discoveries of science.

As far as GOD is conserned, there is the mathematical approach. Ie, the statistical principal. You may have heard this description: A cat is put in one of two boxes. There is a 50/50 chance that the cat is in either box. The cat can be said to be half in one box and half in the other. Which is the principal that allows a single photon of light to go through two slits at the same time. Thus GOD as described as either being there or not. The principal applies to GOD as being at least half there. Half there is there none the less.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-30 23:37 ]</font>

DStahl
2001-Dec-01, 05:31 AM
SAMU: //Sometimes the observations of stark raving lunatics are followed up to be discovered to be amoung the most profound discoveries of science.//

Hehe--I'd love to see the statistics on this one: how many stark raving lunatics come up with profound discoveries and how many produce irrelevant lunacy.

Someone on another board once asked what would convince other members of the existence of God or gods. The only thing I could think of was a repeatable violation of causality with intelligent intent--ie a directed miracle. If the Pope were able to reliably regenerate the mutilated arms of Congolese children, over and over, then I would rethink my position. Outside of that, I will probably not waste much time on kabbalist literature or the Bhagavad-gita or whatever.

On the other hand, evidence that science works is everywhere around us. I use it every day. Science tells me that to remove chlorine gas from contaminated air one can scrub the air with a strong aqueous mixture of sodium hydroxide. That's useful! It works! We can use this to safeguard the public against accidental releases of chlorine gas. A religion tells me "One who gives full attention and respect to hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam achieves unflinching faith in the Supreme Lord, the giver of salvation." Is that useful? Does it 'work' in any discernable way in the real world? I am immediately impelled to retort, "Prove it!"

Anyway, the subject has been beaten to death in a hundred weighty books. I, for one, do not accept DJ's challenge to immerse myself in kabbalism and theology. I'm still struggling with <U>Principles of Physical Cosmology</U>!

Kaptain K
2001-Dec-01, 09:07 AM
As a character in one of Robert Heinlein's novels said:
"If your faith is strong enough, you can make water run uphill. What, water still runs downhill? That just proves that your faith is not strong enough."

_________________
TANSTAAFL!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-12-01 04:08 ]</font>

NubiWan
2001-Dec-01, 12:18 PM
Hey.., that's not fair, tried to engage, and yas run off and start another thread. Won't work, ya know...

DJ


At what point does one decide to separate the mechanical (i.e. rule driven)nature of our universe and our physics from it's origin, and it's pre-origin?
I've heard many on this board claim that because time does not exist before the big bang, what actually did exist before time, and before the big bang is of no consequence to science. I.E. it is unobtainable to understand via the study of science.


Why is this a problem, is your god bound by the confines of time, then? The physical universe we know, came into existance with the BB, defined by the known temporal and three spatial dimensions, created with it. As has been said, what if anything, existed prior to the BB, is of 'consequence' to science, but just currently outside its reach.

Wiley


Discussions turning to theology debates is probably due to scientific debates being harder and in theology you can't be proven wrong.


This isn't quite accurate, is it? If we were discussing Christianity, say, and me began quoting uh, Buddha as the spokesman for god, for example? The nuances of some religions can actually be quite demanding.

Silas


No one has ever shown us a way to see ghosts, gods, angels, devils, heavens, hells, souls, or magic. No one has even proposed the most basic working definitions of these things.


Nor did the millions, who claim to have experienced such things have the need to be 'shown' a method. Why, believe me has even experienced a bit of heaven.., hell too, within me short sweet life. Haven't you? But there are most definitely 'definitions,' SIC!, for each of the terms you mentioned. But completely agree with your conclusion, hope that it won't harm your argument.

DStahl


Someone on another board once asked what would convince other members of the existence of God or gods. The only thing I could think of was a repeatable violation of causality with intelligent intent--ie a directed miracle. If the Pope were able to reliably regenerate the mutilated arms of Congolese children, over and over, then I would rethink my position.


Welp, am forced to concede your point, the Pope is most definitely not a "god." Considering the scale of the universe, we know to be, personally have no expectation, nor requirement, for 'god' to intercede on humanity's behalf, let alone any individual, any more than might have already been done. "I," from the void of non-existence come, and shall return, but in my brief time, ahh what wonders have i beheld. It is enough of a "miracle" for me.

SAMU


Did Einstien know that he would describe reletivity when he began considering weather it could be described? What if he failed to compleate his description? Does his in fact incomplete description show the failing of science? Or does it truly show the utility of the gift of attempting to describe the indescribable? Do we now, considering with all the tools of consideration at our command, any unknown know what the result of consideration will be?


If memory serves, think ol' Albert did have an intuitive 'flash,' while riding on a trolley, something about the speed of light. Doubt he knew exactly where his attempt at a mathematical explaination of his insight, and all its ramifications, would lead, thou. The ol' son sure came through, huh. But quess me does "miss the point." Are you saying that his theory of relativity, the most tested theory in all history, had been around for thousands of years? Not sure me gets what yer aiming at, never claimed to be charp. Butt yeah, we start with intuition, apply science, and end up with sometimes unexpected results, but always physical reality. Liked your GOD ideal, don't agree with it, but like the concept, for what its worth.

One of me favorite quotes is from ol' Albert, "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."-A. Einstein Kind'a lean towards the latter.

VD


I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof.


Not so certain of that in the first part, and the last part just isn't true. Theism is not a philosophy, it is a religion. What if we were to change the word "observable" to "perceivable?" There are absolutely no restrictions on any assertion me may choose to make. You, in order to accept an assertion, may require scientific proof, not all do. But me being me, won't be confused by facts, and will continue to know, that me is right. And as you must know, acceptance of a 'supreme being,' requires faith in the absence of scientific proof.

Donnie B.


The notion that 'everybody believes in some kind of theology' is naive, unless your definition of theology is very different from mine. Millions of people reject theism entirely. Millions more are agnostic on the question.


True enough, but not quite "naive" me tinks. What is your definition of theology? Billions do embrace such beliefs, you know. Does that carry any weight?

Wiley


Let's take this in pieces.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-11-30 14:58, DJ wrote:
A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena.

I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would submit the exact opposite is true. People who believe this are only using there senses and are not making unfounded and unsupportable inferences about God or any other demiurge.


What, are you senseless! Joke, joke, me jokes..., ahem. Would suggest "People who believe this..," are imposing their intellect over their senses, actually. Unfounded, unsupportable to who? The awareness or belief in a demiurge, is a first hand experience, and apparently similarly shared by the vast majority of humanity. It's primary effect is emotional in nature, one of feelings, not a physical object to be handled or examined. Don't think anyone is attempting to 'convert' anyone, here. Huh? But no one can deny, that our first cosmological models in fact, came from our religions. So its hardly 'absurd' that a connection with theology lingers.



I don't think you can. Any philosophy or theology must account for what we know of the universe regardless of if and when the universe was created.


Mmmm.., while me agrees in principle, you need to qualify that "must." Me could adopt and live by a philosophy or theology, that could deny all of what we know of physical reality, perhaps not for long, thou, should you or anyone else, accept it or not. True? By chance could you supply a link to what cosmologists consider the utmost importance, that speculation on what might have existed prior to the BB? BTW going beyond the "testable" doesn't absolutely lead to theology, but certainly into metaphysics.

There, should have offended enough of yas, that if yas go off to another thread, at least ya'll have good reason this time. Darn it, Azpod, couldn't find anything to nitpick which ya. "We are a way for the universe to know itself. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can, because the Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff."-Carl Sagan

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: NubiWan on 2001-12-01 07:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: NubiWan on 2001-12-01 07:34 ]</font>

DJ
2001-Dec-01, 02:36 PM
On 2001-11-30 18:43, Donnie B. wrote:


On 2001-11-30 18:31, DJ wrote:
I will endeavour to study science, including mathematics, physics, and astronomy, to the best of my ability (which I think is fair), and see the results of such, if one of you will study philosophy, theology, and kabbalism.


What makes you think that none of us has done so? I think I know a bit about the first two (not at a professional level, perhaps).

I confess that I have limited familiarity with the mystical roots of Judaism, however. Do you think that if I study that, I'll find some repeatably demonstrable evidence for the existence of a god?



What makes me think that you have not done so?

You see, you've already determined the right and wrong of the topic. Your last statement "... find some repeatably demonstrable evidence for the existence of a god?" speaks volumes of your intentions.

Think for a second exactly what you're implying: I will study philosophy et al IN THE SAME WAY I study science. And then try to scientifically analyze the results [against what I already know /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif )

Quite fundamentally wrong. The study of philosophy is done to the opposite. Though it does require strong analysis, it's not the scientific kind. It is not to look at it and think "paper, ink, glue, page numbers."

To study philosophy, one must approach a bunch of trees, rocks, plants, soil not as a bunch of trees, rocks, plans, soil, but instead as a forest... as the simplest example.

I'm failing here at the description. That is because it is intuitive, but difficult to describe. I was once very "scientific" I can assure you. My shelves are littered with hundreds of issues of Popular Science, Radio Electronics (remember that one?), astronomy journals, etc.

I read one book, one short book, at the request of a friend. (It was NOT the bible), and that book was successful in changing the thought patterns, and it opened up something entirely different. Imagine walking outside and recognizing everything exactly as you would expect, except it was all different. I still do not understand it.

But something so powerful cannot... nay should not be pushed aside as mere fancy.

Kaptain K
2001-Dec-01, 05:56 PM
Imagine walking outside and recognizing everything exactly as you would expect, except it was all different. I still do not understand it.
Almost word for word description of my first "acid" trip. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Wiley
2001-Dec-01, 10:31 PM
On 2001-12-01 12:56, Kaptain K wrote:

Imagine walking outside and recognizing everything exactly as you would expect, except it was all different. I still do not understand it.
Almost word for word description of my first "acid" trip. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Really? You did not take enough then. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2001-Dec-02, 12:01 AM
On 2001-12-01 09:36, DJ wrote:


On 2001-11-30 18:43, Donnie B. wrote:


On 2001-11-30 18:31, DJ wrote:
I will endeavour to study science, including mathematics, physics, and astronomy, to the best of my ability (which I think is fair), and see the results of such, if one of you will study philosophy, theology, and kabbalism.


(snipped)

I confess that I have limited familiarity with the mystical roots of Judaism, however. Do you think that if I study that, I'll find some repeatably demonstrable evidence for the existence of a god?



What makes me think that you have not done so?

You see, you've already determined the right and wrong of the topic. Your last statement "... find some repeatably demonstrable evidence for the existence of a god?" speaks volumes of your intentions.


Oh, sorry. I thought you were offering me the opportunity to study kabbalism in response to my earlier request for some evidence for the existence of a god. I see now that you were, instead, trying to share your mystical experience with me. I'm grateful that you have such noble intentions, but I'll pass. I've gone down that path before.

I'm perfectly content to live in a vast and awe-inspiring universe which holds many mysteries, mysteries that by concerted effort we may one day understand better. But I don't see any reason to think that some ineffable, immaterial, supernatural being is any part of that mystery.

I am, however, willing to change my mind, should the evidence so indicate. But so far, you haven't come anywhere near the threshold it would take to convince me.




(snipped)

But something so powerful cannot... nay should not be pushed aside as mere fancy.


Hey, I enjoy a beautiful sunset or a star-spangled night sky as much as the next guy.

I don't deny that you feel what you do, but I can't agree with your interpretation of it. After all, to a schizophrenic, those voices in his head are perfectly real. But that doesn't mean they're the voices of angels, demons, or his dead dog.

Kaptain K
2001-Dec-02, 12:07 AM
Wiley said:
Really? You did not take enough then.
I meant the day after. The world has been "the same but different" ever since.

Mr. X
2001-Dec-02, 03:39 AM
After all, to a schizophrenic, those voices in his head are perfectly real. But that doesn't mean they're the voices of angels, demons, or his dead dog.

I disagree! The voices are very real!

I also think he is right! The voices are real!

Yes, they are both right! How could it not be real when it sounds so real!

Those guys are wrong, because there is only one voice, get it? And it's mine!

Nonsense, mine is as real as yours! How dare you question my existence!

And mine! And also mine!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

NottyImp
2001-Dec-02, 12:02 PM
"I therefore submit, that science is a bad path to go down. It is limited, and thus cannot describe phenomena at the highest levels."

Yes, I've met many people over the years who have moaned about how limited and irrelevant science is to their lives. They often do this just before answering their mobile 'phones, or by posting a message using their PC's on the net, or after just having taken an aspirin to get rid of a headache. Technology that, ironically, in all cases would have been regarded as "miraculous" itself only a few short years ago.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: NottyImp on 2001-12-02 07:08 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Dec-02, 06:38 PM
I hate to get involved in that kind of talk, I think all those disciplines are better off apart, not talking to each other, somebody issue a restraining order!

Please forget about me after this. Oh boy am I going to get whipped around for this.

I think that what it would mean is that science and technology are all fun and games, but they don't answer the questions that really matter.

**Idiotic response to what I just said**
How do you know which questions matter?

First off: Boy do I hate people who answer like that! You know which questions! Yeah, THOSE. The philoso-thingamajig questions (that was a JOKE).

A part of learning philosophy (I'm sure everyone here has gone through a hefty quantity of philosophy) is realizing that you are probing questions that can only be answered through reasoning, and not measurement.

There's no easy answer to those questions, and anyone who thinks science can answer to the WHY of things is mistaken. There's no magic fix, any kind of measurement that can provide a satisfactory answer, or even remotely adequate.

I didn't read the thread, so I won't say anything else, I just read that last answer, which seemed a little simplistic, but I don't believe any kind of person would say the science and technology have no purpose just because they don't tackle the most complicated issues known to man. If there had been no science and technology we probably wouldn't even be aware of those questions, we'd be running around fields trying to hunt mammoths, grunting and groaning. I don't think we'd have much time for complicated reflexions like that. If anyone were to think that science and technology have no importance then become a philospher (self-made), sell your house, car, and roam the planet "meditating". For all we know there may not even be answers to those questions, so use your life as you see fit.

Not that I am not talking about religion, because I don't want "flames". Some people here sure know a think or two about "flaming", maybe they should be called "flamethrowers". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-12-02 13:40 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Dec-02, 10:14 PM
Nubiwan Kenobi,

Just a few clarifications:




Wiley


Discussions turning to theology debates is probably due to scientific debates being harder and in theology you can't be proven wrong.


This isn't quite accurate, is it? If we were discussing Christianity, say, and me began quoting uh, Buddha as the spokesman for god, for example? The nuances of some religions can actually be quite demanding.


I think this is an accurate response to the question asked: why do discussions on this forum turn to theology? I do not dispute that "nuances of some religions (are) demanding"; however, rarely do forum discussions explore these nuances. They are more along the lines of

"my god can beat up your god"

or

-God exists.
-No he doesn't.
-Does to!
-Does not!



Wiley


Let's take this in pieces.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-11-30 14:58, DJ wrote:
A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena.

I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would submit the exact opposite is true. People who believe this are only using there senses and are not making unfounded and unsupportable inferences about God or any other demiurge.


What, are you senseless! Joke, joke, me jokes..., ahem. Would suggest "People who believe this..," are imposing their intellect over their senses, actually. Unfounded, unsupportable to who? The awareness or belief in a demiurge, is a first hand experience, and apparently similarly shared by the vast majority of humanity. It's primary effect is emotional in nature, one of feelings, not a physical object to be handled or examined. Don't think anyone is attempting to 'convert' anyone, here. Huh? But no one can deny, that our first cosmological models in fact, came from our religions. So its hardly 'absurd' that a connection with theology lingers.


No disagreement here. But we must recongize the difference between observation coupled with the scientific method and observation coupled with emotional need. To some, God is definitely an observable phenomenon, but are they taking a natural phenomenon and interpreting to fit their prejudices?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-12-02 17:16 ]</font>

NubiWan
2001-Dec-03, 04:31 AM
Mr., uh, Mr. me forgets..


If there had been no science and technology we probably wouldn't even be aware of those questions, we'd be running around fields trying to hunt mammoths, grunting and groaning.


Technology, science, philoso-thingamajiggy, theolography, all that kind of stuff, provide solutions, that are 'important' at one time or another, personally. Can you read this, are ya get'n this? Duh!!!
Rutting, don't forget rutting! Have an on-going study, rutting.., very important.., survial of the species, rutting..mumble mumble

Kap'n K


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine walking outside and recognizing everything exactly as you would expect, except it was all different. I still do not understand it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost word for word description of my first "acid" trip.


Aptly true, huh... Wonder what book, DJ was talking about? God, went though Heinlein like popcorn, back in high school, never been the same from that, either.

Wiley


I think this is an accurate response to the question asked: why do discussions on this forum turn to theology? I do not dispute that "nuances of some religions (are) demanding"; however, rarely do forum discussions explore these nuances. They are more along the lines of
"my god can beat up your god"
or
-God exists.
-No he doesn't.
-Does to!
-Does not!


Yikes! You have me out, DJ's shout-out must have distracted me a bit, missed his qualifier. Was thinking 'discussions of cosmology' in general. *shrug* Have been "proved wrong" in just about any discipline, including theology, you'ld care to toss out. As long as me is trying, expect to be proven wrong again, too. You will admit me is trying, huh? *LOL* Admit, that you've certainly grasped the essence of the debate.

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Dec-03, 04:42 AM
Let me take a moment to reiterate my stand here: this BB is not the place to debate God or religion unless there is a direct relationship to astronomy (the Big Bang, for example). This is not a threat, simply a reminder: Keep it astronomical, folks, or take it outside.

NubiWan
2001-Dec-03, 05:22 AM
Wiley


But we must recongize the difference between observation coupled with the scientific method and observation coupled with emotional need. To some, God is definitely an observable phenomenon, but are they taking a natural phenomenon and interpreting to fit their prejudices?


Well, we certainly should. To my mind, its why me likes the word 'perception' of god, over an observation. It's a less precise, measured, term, and allows enough 'slop' for an emotional component, but no less valid in a first-hand experience IMO. Dunno about 'prejudice,' perhaps, but drawing on me own experiences, more of a need for an explaination, or an interpreted validation, and personally most importantly, to remain feeling part of all that is perceived. Understand our 'wet-ware' is actually wired for it, and just choose to acknowledge that part of me, to me.

Bright full moon here, beautiful. OK, ok, BA, last post on the topic... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: NubiWan on 2001-12-03 00:27 ]</font>

Diogenes
2001-Dec-03, 02:14 PM
On 2001-12-02 23:42, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Let me take a moment to reiterate my stand here: this BB is not the place to debate God or religion unless there is a direct relationship to astronomy (the Big Bang, for example). This is not a threat, simply a reminder: Keep it astronomical, folks, or take it outside.



If there really is a God, it does not seem unreasonable to think, you should be able to find him/her/it with a telescope../phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Valiant Dancer
2001-Dec-03, 03:19 PM
On 2001-12-01 07:18, NubiWan wrote:

VD


I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof.


Not so certain of that in the first part, and the last part just isn't true. Theism is not a philosophy, it is a religion. What if we were to change the word "observable" to "perceivable?" There are absolutely no restrictions on any assertion me may choose to make. You, in order to accept an assertion, may require scientific proof, not all do. But me being me, won't be confused by facts, and will continue to know, that me is right. And as you must know, acceptance of a 'supreme being,' requires faith in the absence of scientific proof.


Religion is a philosiphy. Constructs of that religion are, in fact, philisophical in nature. What we are talking about is scientific proof of a supreme being. Saying "God made all of this" is a philisopical statement that has no scientific proof. Therefore, not directly observable. For a supreme being to be observable, its effect must be measurable.
God's influence is said to be in all things and mysterious in its form. (Unmeasurable) The provable (a word which I mistakenly left off the original post) attribution of a phenomenon to a supreme being must be backed up with scienfic proof. Faith is a philisophical concept. If we changed the word "observable" to "percievable", the frame of reference shifts to the philisophical and becomes validly provable under philisophical means.

Valiant Dancer
2001-Dec-03, 03:31 PM
On 2001-11-30 16:08, DJ wrote:



I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof. If you have it, let's hear it. Although I am a Theist, I do not let my God belief cloud the study of physical science. Your multiple ad-hominem attacks against Theists with other ideas and Atheists are duly noted. So is your miscomprehension of Atheists. What came before the BB is unobservable and therefore out of the pervue of science.



I have read books of historical evidence which indicate God is the reason for everything. Much too large to quote here. I would use those as support of my argument. Please provide your counter, and if you use the big bang, please describe the processes which existed which caused that as well. I need a complete picture.

Please point out what I have missed with my comments as it relates to: a·the·ist (th-st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.




Which books of historical evidence? The Bible, Quran, Book of Shadows, Baglavad Gita, and other "Holy" books are not allowed in your list.

The theory of Creationism is based solely on philosiphy. Since this theory is not valid, then the prevailing theory of BB which is backed up by observations is until someone can prove something better.

Your contention that all Atheists believe in God but choose to deny it is absurd. While they disagree with Theists as to the existance of a supreme being, to paint all of them as at one time being believers is incorrect. I have known several Atheists who have children and are raising them as Atheists. A God belief never was part of their upbringing.

NubiWan
2001-Dec-03, 07:51 PM
VD:
"Religion is a philosiphy. Constructs of that religion are, in fact, philisophical in nature."
Granted, religion is a sub-set of philosophy. Should me say, "I will endeavour to do no harm," is a statement of philisophical intent. If me adds the phrase, "with the help of god," or "the gods," it becomes one of a religious intent IMO.
"What we are talking about is scientific proof of a supreme being. Saying "God made all of this" is a philisopical statement that has no scientific proof."
Precisely so, though me would still prefer the use of "religious statement." We didn't actually see, or observe, god, or the gods, make "all this," but we do see, or observe, "all this." "All this," is measurable, and provable. We put our trust, confidence, conviction, or our faith, into the BBT, that "all this" began with the Big Bang, which we didn't actually see, or observe, either. And should we increase the scale of the universe a magnitude or two, we could say, it was a construct of god, or the gods, that allowed the possiblity for the BB to exist, as a matter of faith.
"The provable attribution of a phenomenon to a supreme being must be backed up with scienfic proof."
Must it? What authority is to enforce this demand? Guess it is the use of "must" in these posts, that me most objects. Had the phrase, say, "to be scienitifically valid," or "for me to accept," been included, would have been content. Isn't science all about drawing distinctions as fine as possible? If me makes the very claim, "God made all this," the proof is, that you and i, are here to see "all this," does science disprove it?
Does.
Does not.

The moon, the stars, all shine so brightly in me little telescope. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Astronomy is a good thing...

Mr. X
2001-Dec-04, 06:50 PM
Right, *sighs*.

I forgot to mention rutting.

Added due to popular demand.

***sighs***

DStahl
2001-Dec-05, 10:39 PM
Addendum: The whole of my post, below, seems somewhat tangential to the original topic. I'll leave it, set off in an ucky red color, in case anyone wants to comment.

DJ's original question was: "A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena. I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived."

I submit that the key here is one word: observable. If by that word you mean something can be physically seen, measured, detected, and described in physical terms by anyone with the proper equipment, then I would certainly suggest that we have not observed a god or gods. Here you are talking about consensual reality. If you intend observable to mean something that can be detected emotionally or spiritually, then certainly I could accept that you observe a god or gods. If you feel divinity in all you see, then your second sentence makes sense, but only insofar as all men share your emotional or spiritual observation, because in this case you are talking about non-consensual or individual reality.

I hope that makes sense. It's the only way I could get a grip on the question, anyway.

<font color=#992255>To move a little bit back towards astronomy, or at least cosmology (ahem!): There are various hypotheses put forward by theists which should, sooner or later, become subject to disproof, making them scientifically testable. For example, one hypothesis states that the classical view of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is fundamentally correct and the reason the electrons don't radiate away energy and spiral into the nucleus is that a Supreme Being constantly pours energy into the Universe in order to maintain it. See Lambert Dolphin's (http://www.ldolphin.org/creationphysics.html) site, and also the footnote at the bottom of this post. I would think that this hypothesis should be testable. (Although whether disproof would be accepted by theists is another matter. Is there any sense in talking about whether the concept of god is disprovable when religious fundamentalists simply deny that their holy books can be falsified in any meaningful way?)

Most of us are, I think, familiar with the concept of a "God of the Gaps," a deity which is proclaimed to exist in the features of the Universe which are least known by science and therefore least subject to disproof. That's interesting to me because I seem to see an historical retreat: mankind's understanding of "where God is" has been pushed from a specific physical place--the topmost celestial sphere, located in the sky above Earth--to an undefined not-space, not-time that exists/existed "outside" the Universe and before/outside the Big Bang, or whichever creation mechanism one proposes. This puts god beyond the reach of science in its current understanding.

Opinion alert! I am not assaulting beliefs here, just stating my personal take on matters.

To me, this retreat seems to support the idea that a god or gods is indeed simply a concept used by some people to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. I can't forget that only 100 years ago quasars were unknown and the origin of the Universe was a deep mystery, as were the origin of Earth's continents and the details of cellular biochemistry. Our knowledge at the beginning of the 21<sup>st</sup> century seems exponentially greater than at the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup>, and god or gods correspondingly more remote and, in my opinion, more unlikely to exist at all.

I recently bought a small book written by Sir Fred Hoyle in 1950 about the then-current knowledge of the Universe. Near the end he gives his opinion on "contemporary religious beliefs." I'd like to quote several pages, but I'll limit myself to a few sentences:

"Here we are in this wholly fantastic Universe with scarcely a clue as to whether our existence has any real significance. No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this security is illusory. But I do not like the situation any better than they do. The difference is that I cannot see how the smallest advantage is to be gained from deceiving myself." (<U>The Nature of the Universe</U>, page 125, Harper & Brothers, 1950)</font>


<Font size=-1>From Lambert Dolphin's site, linked above:

"Barry Setterfield suggests constant energy from the vacuum flows into [every] atom. I would surmise that is a manifestation of God's sustaining power input coming, as it were, "from the other side of the vacuum." In Colossians Chapter One we are shown a picture of the Son of God as upholding the universe moment by moment. The work of creation by God occupied just six days, after which God stopped creating. But He went on to sustain the universe. Colossians 1 and Hebrews One give reason to suppose that the moment-by-moment sustaining of the cosmos involves the input of both force and energy from outside the system, ie., from the spiritual realm in which the material worlds is immersed."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-12-05 19:51 ]</font>

Ducost
2001-Dec-06, 10:19 AM
Here's a way to prove/disprove the existance of God. This is not really possible to do, but it might lead others to find a possin=ble way to do it.

Here's my idea. If we had a superpowerful telescope capable, and we had a form of faster than light travel, we could travel several thousand light years away from Earth and look back. We could make a quick stop at 6000 light years and look back, if there was a creation then, we could see it, results there is a god. If not, we travel farther, to see the formation of the sun, if there is a God, we should see him making it. We could travel far enough and look back and see the creation of the universe. We could see the origin and tell if God was there.

Of course the above is impossible, but it is a way to scientifiacally observe God if he exist

Diogenes
2001-Dec-06, 12:30 PM
Of course the above is impossible, but it is a way to scientifiacally observe God if he exist



Abort! Abort! Does not compute! Paradox! Paradox! How Many Angels on the head of a pin?

Everything I say is a Lie. So my last statement is a lie, which means everything I say is the truth, so if it is the truth then it must be a lie, so......................

Silas
2001-Dec-06, 03:07 PM
On 2001-12-06 07:30, Diogenes wrote:
Everything I say is a Lie. So my last statement is a lie, which means everything I say is the truth, so if it is the truth then it must be a lie, so......................



Thanks loads! My computer just exploded in a great whoosh of smoke and sparks. (And it was only a moment away from solving for the "last digit of pi," too!)

Illogical... Illogical... Iloogical... Ish kabibble...

Silas

Ducost
2001-Dec-06, 03:52 PM
On 2001-12-06 07:30, Diogenes wrote:
[quote]
Everything I say is a Lie. So my last statement is a lie, which means everything I say is the truth, so if it is the truth then it must be a lie, so......................



"Everything I say is a Lie" is a lie, but that doesn't mean that "everything I say is the truth" it could simply mean that "somethings I say are a lie" Computed 386

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Dec-06, 04:06 PM
On 2001-12-06 10:52, Ducost wrote:
"Everything I say is a Lie" is a lie, but that doesn't mean that "everything I say is the truth" it could simply mean that "somethings I say are a lie"

Got ya there.

It's very easy to come up with an unsolvable paradox, though. Check out this variation on the elementary school word problem:

You have exactly two dollars. Apples cost 25 cents each. You have exactly three dollars. How many apples can you buy?

It's self-contradictory, obviously. The question, and it's setup, make an answer impossible. Less obvious is that the same thing occurs in questions like "Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?"

The answer to that question is, of course, that should be she.

SeanF
2001-Dec-06, 04:53 PM
Grapes,

You don't even need to be that obvious about it.

Is the following statement true or false?
"This statement is false."

Think about that one for a while . . .

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Dec-06, 05:22 PM
But I'm trying to make it obvious.

The point is, we can construct perfectly understandable questions that are inherently self-contradictory--because of the way we construct them, not because of any paradox of logic. Isolating the self-contradiction is where we can make progress.

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Dec-06, 05:33 PM
I think this has strayed far enough from astronomy. This thread is locked.