21 replies to this topic

[nivek]

Who do you prefer in this interesting discussion?

[crazy-tiger]

As I said yesterday...

First, define what the God is...
Second, prove that the God matches the definition...
Result? Logical proof that God/s exist.



Only the first was done, so I have to award it to Bruce by default.

[Asuryan]

I voted for Bruce.

I agree that what a thing IS and how a thing is DEFINED are two different things. Reality exists independently from the words we use to define it.
If we define a rose with a different word (let's say, daisy), the physical object "rose" won't suddenly become a daisy (straight white petals, rather big yellow round center, no thorns, etc). Definitions and reality are different things.

On a completely unrelated note:
That closing post about the shining white knight on a shining white steed is so cheesy I won't need to put parmesan on my pasta for two weeks.

[Saviourmachine]

I voted for SSel. I disagree with his manners, and IMHO he made some logical mistakes. I did find Bruce first post okay, but after that he wasn't that convincing anymore. I didn't approve of his manners either. I think there were better arguments to make. And I did like the shining white knight post.

Nevertheless, thanks you both! Thanks for your time.

[NotBlinded]

I didn't vote because I don't know the rules of logic well enough to make an informed decision. But, I will agree Asuryan that reality does exist outside of any label we assign to it. I think that only helps us on being able to differentiate between parts of the same thing. When we are sick and the doctor asks us where it hurts, we don't just say our body, we are more specific and may say our head or stomach and most of the time, that is still not specific enough. But, that doesn't change that fact that it is our body that is hurting. So, why can't every little speck of reality be parts of 'god'?

I think the debate was doomed to begin with when one is arguing on a macro level (body = god) and the other is arguing from a micro level (stomach = known reality). If we were able to take every substance from our body and toss it about, would that substance know it was part of the body?

[Cerise]

I didn't vote because I don't know the rules of logic well enough to make an informed decision.  But, I will agree Asuryan that reality does exist outside of any label we assign to it.  I think that only helps us on being able to differentiate between parts of the same thing.  When we are sick and the doctor asks us where it hurts, we don't just say our body, we are more specific and may say our head or stomach and most of the time, that is still not specific enough.  But, that doesn't change that fact that it is our body that is hurting.  So, why can't every little speck of reality be parts of 'god'?

I think the debate was doomed to begin with when one is arguing on a macro level (body = god) and the other is arguing from a micro level (stomach = known reality).  If we were able to take every substance from our body and toss it about, would that substance know it was part of the body?

That analogy only works if when you say your toe hurts you can refer to every single toe in the world, some trees, a hamburger bun, and icicles, etc. Because that's every speck of reality right there. Moonbeams, peanuts, staplers, candle wax, and your stomach must hurt in order to make that analogy work.

We define by opposition. We classify by what is not, not by what is. That's why having god= everything isn't any kind of classification of what a god is. You might as well say that toothpicks are god or devils are god, or rapists are god, or silly putty is god. And at the end of the day, there's no way you can come up with an understanding of what is meant by "god" using the "everything" classification. Not when "everything" includes opposites and you're talking about an absolute being.

[NotBlinded]

I didn't vote because I don't know the rules of logic well enough to make an informed decision.  But, I will agree Asuryan that reality does exist outside of any label we assign to it.  I think that only helps us on being able to differentiate between parts of the same thing.  When we are sick and the doctor asks us where it hurts, we don't just say our body, we are more specific and may say our head or stomach and most of the time, that is still not specific enough.  But, that doesn't change that fact that it is our body that is hurting.  So, why can't every little speck of reality be parts of 'god'?

I think the debate was doomed to begin with when one is arguing on a macro level (body = god) and the other is arguing from a micro level (stomach = known reality).  If we were able to take every substance from our body and toss it about, would that substance know it was part of the body?

That analogy only works if when you say your toe hurts you can refer to every single toe in the world, some trees, a hamburger bun, and icicles, etc. Because that's every speck of reality right there. Moonbeams, peanuts, staplers, candle wax, and your stomach must hurt in order to make that analogy work.

We define by opposition. We classify by what is not, not by what is. That's why having god= everything isn't any kind of classification of what a god is. You might as well say that toothpicks are god or devils are god, or rapists are god, or silly putty is god. And at the end of the day, there's no way you can come up with an understanding of what is meant by "god" using the "everything" classification. Not when "everything" includes opposites and you're talking about an absolute being.

You are right Cerise (and hi there!). But, how do we know what the parts of 'god' are? There is no way to come to an understanding of what is meant by god and it is fruitless to try. All the powers of the universe is "what it is" and it's nice to think that we are a part of this universe. I try very hard not to use 'god' when I speak of "all there is" due to what the word denotes to people. The word 'god' has been defined and has lost it's 'meaninglessness'...so to speak.

Edited by notblindedbytheblight, 17 November 2005 - 02:22 PM.

[NotBlinded]

I didn't vote because I don't know the rules of logic well enough to make an informed decision.  But, I will agree Asuryan that reality does exist outside of any label we assign to it.  I think that only helps us on being able to differentiate between parts of the same thing.  When we are sick and the doctor asks us where it hurts, we don't just say our body, we are more specific and may say our head or stomach and most of the time, that is still not specific enough.  But, that doesn't change that fact that it is our body that is hurting.  So, why can't every little speck of reality be parts of 'god'?

I think the debate was doomed to begin with when one is arguing on a macro level (body = god) and the other is arguing from a micro level (stomach = known reality).  If we were able to take every substance from our body and toss it about, would that substance know it was part of the body?

That analogy only works if when you say your toe hurts you can refer to every single toe in the world, some trees, a hamburger bun, and icicles, etc. Because that's every speck of reality right there. Moonbeams, peanuts, staplers, candle wax, and your stomach must hurt in order to make that analogy work.

We define by opposition. We classify by what is not, not by what is. That's why having god= everything isn't any kind of classification of what a god is. You might as well say that toothpicks are god or devils are god, or rapists are god, or silly putty is god. And at the end of the day, there's no way you can come up with an understanding of what is meant by "god" using the "everything" classification. Not when "everything" includes opposites and you're talking about an absolute being.

You are right Cerise (and hi there!). But, how do we know what the parts of 'god' are? There is no way to come to an understanding of what is meant by god and it is fruitless to try. All the powers of the universe is "what it is" and it's nice to think that we are a part of this universe. I try very hard not to use 'god' when I speak of "all there is" due to what the word denotes to people. The word 'god' has been defined and has lost it's 'meaninglessness'...so to speak.

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite. Does energy have an opposite? It's an honest question because I thought that all things have energy, either potential or kinetic. Could "all there is" be energy? That is more along the lines I am thinking. Like that movie Powder...my favorite of all time. Maybe at some point in time we will discover that consciousness exists in all things (at some rudimentary level).

Edited by notblindedbytheblight, 17 November 2005 - 04:47 PM.

[Cerise]

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite.  Does energy have an opposite?  It's an honest question because I thought that all things have energy, either potential or kinetic.  Could "all there is" be energy?  That is more along the lines I am thinking.  Like that movie Powder...my favorite of all time.   Maybe at some point in time we will discover that consciousness exists in all things (at some rudimentary level).

That might be a little creepy. I'd hate to find out that the chair I've been sitting on has consciousness. 'Cause I've done some really awful things to this chair.

[NotBlinded]

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite.  Does energy have an opposite?  It's an honest question because I thought that all things have energy, either potential or kinetic.  Could "all there is" be energy?  That is more along the lines I am thinking.  Like that movie Powder...my favorite of all time.   Maybe at some point in time we will discover that consciousness exists in all things (at some rudimentary level).

That might be a little creepy. I'd hate to find out that the chair I've been sitting on has consciousness. 'Cause I've done some really awful things to this chair.

[Ssel]

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite. Does energy have an opposite?

No where in the entire universe do opposites exist except in the minds of people. What is the opposite of a 3 legged stool?

Even a negative electric field is not identical to a positive field with the same potential, they have slightly different shapes (which is why there are more protons than negatons). Reality contains NO true opposites.
The idea of an opposite is much like the idea of North, it is an idea for sake of the thought, it has nothing to do with reality.

Also, true randomness can not exist in the universe, nor true zero, nor non-linearness.

Edited by Ssel, 18 November 2005 - 04:03 PM.

[Ssel]

We define by opposition. We classify by what is not, not by what is. That's why having god= everything isn't any kind of classification of what a god is. You might as well say that toothpicks are god or devils are god, or rapists are god, or silly putty is god. And at the end of the day, there's no way you can come up with an understanding of what is meant by "god" using the "everything" classification. Not when "everything" includes opposites and you're talking about an absolute being.

The pantheist defines God as the combination of all things, not each individual thing and the opposite would be the LACK of anything = nothing at all.

He is proclaiming that the ultimate authority for the outcome of EVERY event is the end effect of the combination of ALL things at the time.

Edited by Ssel, 18 November 2005 - 04:12 PM.

[NotBlinded]

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite. Does energy have an opposite?

No where in the entire universe do opposites exist except in the minds of people. What is the opposite of a 3 legged stool?

Even a negative electric field is not identical to a positive field with the same potential, they have slightly different shapes (which is why there are more protons than negatons). Reality contains NO true opposites.
The idea of an opposite is much like the idea of North, it is an idea for sake of the thought, it has nothing to do with reality.

Also, true randomness can not exist in the universe, nor true zero, nor non-linearness.

I have been reading many of your posts and I am really facinated by them. I know you don't need an ego boost , but I thought I would throw that in there.

...and the idea pays the price for the thought. Have you ever noticed how clearer ideas come to us when we aren't thinking about them? Just rambling...

[Dark Helmet]

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite. Does energy have an opposite?

No where in the entire universe do opposites exist except in the minds of people. What is the opposite of a 3 legged stool?

Even a negative electric field is not identical to a positive field with the same potential, they have slightly different shapes (which is why there are more protons than negatons). Reality contains NO true opposites.
The idea of an opposite is much like the idea of North, it is an idea for sake of the thought, it has nothing to do with reality.

Also, true randomness can not exist in the universe, nor true zero, nor non-linearness.

I have to disagree with you SSel about the absence of opposites in reality.

Isn't matter/antimatter a perfect opposite? Or how about electric charges: negative and positive are exactly opposites one of each other regardless of the mass of the particle bearing the charge. I could also mention a positive gradient in a field is necessaraly opposite of the negative gradient at the same point in the field, be it gravitationnal or electrical. Opposites do exist in reality, we name them negative and positive. They might bear human given names but they are a part of this universe and so of this reality.

About randomness I ask you to consider nuclear disintegration. It is impossible to predict when a given radioactive nucleus will undergo desintegration because of the given statistical nature of the process. So a Geiger counter reading, say, a uranium bar could be seen as a good example of a random impulse generator.

True zeros do not exist, that I agree with. For example, we will never attain zero kelvins, it's impossible. As for non-linearness I don't know enough about it so I'll concede.

DH

[Cerise]

Ohhh...I just thought of something that may not have an opposite. Does energy have an opposite?

No where in the entire universe do opposites exist except in the minds of people. What is the opposite of a 3 legged stool?

Even a negative electric field is not identical to a positive field with the same potential, they have slightly different shapes (which is why there are more protons than negatons). Reality contains NO true opposites.
The idea of an opposite is much like the idea of North, it is an idea for sake of the thought, it has nothing to do with reality.

Also, true randomness can not exist in the universe, nor true zero, nor non-linearness.

1) Where does anything truly exist except within the minds of people?

2) A three legged stool does have opposites (or at least, things of which it is not) such as a four legged chair, a two legged table, or a banana. If, when I said "three legged stool", you could attribute the qualities of two-legged tables, chairs, and bananas to that lable, among everything else in the world, we would have no descriptor for "three-legged stool". You might as well just say "stuff".

Or "God" for that matter.

[Rank Stranger]

I've seen lots of references in the arena, and in other areas of these message boards to "formal logic". This seems to involve 'fallacy' of this or that... 'begging the question'... that sort of thing. I'm not familiar with this convention of "formal logic"- is this something I missed out on by not being on the debate team in high school? Maybe these arena debates would be more productive if we had a few links and some accepted rules of "formal logic"?

I voted for Ssel. I think that even though his arguement was pretty much meaningless, he wins on a technicality. Both debaters agreed to certain premises, and Ssel made a reasonable arguement based on those agreed upon premises (some of which were nearly absurd, and were obviously designed to set up a semantic arguement). This doesn't mean that "God" in the sense that any of us imagine 'him' exists- it only means that an arguement based on agreed rules has been made. Ssel admits as much, saying:
"This statement that “God exists” says nothing of the value of such knowledge." Bruce's main arguement regarding identity, while logically sound, pretty much contradicts a premise that he already agreed to. Maybe there are some folks around here who are more familiar with 'formal logic' who could suggest a different approach that Bruce might have taken?

Are there some agreed upon rules in these formal debates about how the debaters address each other? Both seemed to make the arguements more personal than neccesary, and often addressed their opponents rather than their opponents' arguements. Neither debater seemed to be directly at fault for this... it just gradually build up, maybe due to a lack of agreed tone and/or manners to address each others' post.

[crazy-tiger]

The pantheist defines God as the combination of all things, not each individual thing and the opposite would be the LACK of anything = nothing at all.

He is proclaiming that the ultimate authority for the outcome of EVERY event is the end effect of the combination of ALL things at the time.

I'm still waiting for that definition of God to be shown as anything more than a belief... until then, the logical proof is neither logical or proof.

[Ssel]

I have to disagree with you SSel about the absence of opposites in reality.

Isn't matter/antimatter a perfect opposite? Or how about electric charges: negative and positive are exactly opposites one of each other regardless of the mass .....

About randomness I ask you to consider nuclear disintegration. It is impossible to predict when a given radioactive nucleus will undergo desintegration because of the given statistical nature of the process....

True zeros do not exist, that I agree with. For example, we will never attain zero kelvins, it's impossible. As for non-linearness I don't know enough about it so I'll concede.

Hey! 1 out of 3 is pretty great in THIS forum

All of this is really off topic, of course, but...

No, positive and negative are actually NOT identical yet opposite. As it turns out, a negative electric wave front must always be different than a positive wave front of equal potential. This is due to the fact that the negative wave is a decompression wave of the fabric of space whereas the positive is a compression wave of the fabric. The fabric decompresses at its own chosen rate and can not be pulled. The fabric can be pushed so as to compress MUCH faster. This causes a higher inertia (mass) of the wave front. All particles are made of these waves chasing each other in a tight speed of light loop (which turns out to be why the particle can't attain the speed of light..because to remain a particle a part of it would have to go faster than light...the mass increases as it gains a sharper rise in wave front...it would have to have infinite energy to create a totally straight up wave front..this would be the non-linearity...such would require 100% of all energy in the universe just for that one wave front.) IF positive and negative electric fields could truly ever be the exact same shape, the entire universe would vanish. ALL energy would instantly come to quiescence and nothing would exist. This also leads into explaining why the universe if made of proton and electrons and not negatron and positrons. The shape of the negatron is too unstable to maintain itself for more than a very short instant of time. The proton, on the other hand produces a dense close field so as to remain stable through minor disturbances and thus continues. The electron is spread very thin with a slow wave front (which is what allows it's low mass). The two (proton and electron) can never fully displace each other because they are different shapes and thus the hydrogen atom can form and be stable for ever.

Randomness ... Realize that "true randomness" is not about what "we" can predict, but what anything could EVER predict even though it had the ability to know the EXACT situation of EVERY detail. For true randomness to exist, cause and effect and all of science would have to resign.

1) Where does anything truly exist except within the minds of people?

2) A three legged stool does have opposites (or at least, things of which it is not) such as a four legged chair, a two legged table, or a banana....

1) to exist means that something has affect. It doesn't necessarily affect your mind. Awareness is not required (except to get out of it's way )

2) Yes those are examples of "different" not opposite. Opposite means that something is exactly the same in every OTHER aspect as in opposite directions, they are both directions, but exactly opposite in reference to each other. The opposite of 3 could be considered -3, but then -3 doesn't actually exist in reality. It is merely a notion. The opposite of a banana? Just naming another fruit is not specifying an opposite, but a "different".
The opposite of blue? It can be accepted that a negating or "black-causing" additional color could be an opposite, but in reality the only reason that it appears black is because of perception of the eye. It isn't actually "black" in reality.

I've seen lots of references in the arena, and in other areas of these message boards to "formal logic". This seems to involve 'fallacy' of this or that... 'begging the question'... that sort of thing. I'm not familiar with this convention of "formal logic"- is this something I missed out on by not being on the debate team in high school? Maybe these arena debates would be more productive if we had a few links and some accepted rules of "formal logic"?

Wow, I really WISH those "rules" were a part of this arena, but they are not.
"logic" turns out to be what each debater assumes to be logic and that causes a lot of futile waste, but..

"IT IS what IT IS"

I know you don't need an ego boost , but I thought I would throw that in there.

Yes, you're right I don't need an ego boost, and believe it or not, I really don't want one.

But I DO need to know when I'm NOT being TOO much of an asshole, so thanks.

Edited by Ssel, 19 November 2005 - 02:40 AM.

[Rank Stranger]

Wow, I really WISH those "rules" were a part of this arena, but they are not.
"logic" turns out to be what each debater assumes to be logic and that causes a lot of futile waste, but..

"IT IS what IT IS"

Ssel, you've whined enough. I get the point. Ssel is a brilliant master of logic and everybody else sucks. Happy now?

Maybe we can be a little more constructive here... that's what my previous post was about. This is a fairly new area of the forum, and we all know that things have to be... um... refined. I think just about everybody here would be open to suggestions. Would you care to suggest some specifics on this 'wish' list? Rather than throwing around insults, maybe you could demostrate EXACTLY where this debate went wrong? Meaning at what point did a debater first deviate from the rules that you were expecting, and what exactly are these rules?

[Ssel]

Would you care to suggest some specifics on this 'wish' list? Rather than throwing around insults, maybe you could demonstrate EXACTLY where this debate went wrong? Meaning at what point did a debater first deviate from the rules that you were expecting, and what exactly are these rules?

What you presumed and took as an insult, not only wasn't intended as such, but wasn't one.
But, because you presumed such, you obviously felt free to start throwing rocks yourself even though you apparently haven’t even read the entire debate or you would have seen where I specifically pointed out the exact answer to this question you have asked. To shorten your search if you're so inclined, merely read my rather lengthy response to the 2nd question asked at the end of the debate.

Earlier in the "debate", I explained exactly why I had objection to the manner in which the debate was being handled and what I had expected and why I was a bit annoyed. I accepted to go ahead and struggle through the futile effort simply because I had said that I would even though I has misunderstood what kind of debate it was to be. But that was the END of my "whining".

So how about stop being such an ass now and actually READ the debate before you make your presumptions and insults.

Edited by Ssel, 19 November 2005 - 06:01 PM.