Atheism and nihilism

[SelfSim]

So you believe in consistency. Vague yet specific. I can understand that.

No .. consistency is what logic does .. it can be demonstrated (as can inconsistency). No need for beliefs there.

 

[imisswarmth]

No .. consistency is what logic does .. it can be demonstrated (as can inconsistency). No need for beliefs there.

Do you believe that?

 

[imisswarmth]

It is ok to admit that you believe in a certain belief.

 

[SelfSim]

Anything can happen. How about God? Can that happen?

Well if you assume 'anything can happen', then that's what you mean by 'can happen' .. so you'll get the same result whether it applies to God .. or anything.

As far as science is concerned however, it all depends on whether or not you can define 'God' in some way that scientific thinkers can accept as being testable.

 

[SelfSim]

Do you believe that?

No need for beliefs there.

 

[imisswarmth]

Well if you assume 'anything can happen', then that's what you mean by 'can happen' ..

I thought scientists such as yourself call that a “theory”.

 

[imisswarmth]

No need for beliefs there.

So it is or isn’t?

No Nobel prizes for those who think it is or isn’t? Cause Nobel prizes only belong to new discoverers of new discoveries right?

 

[SelfSim]

It is ok to admit that you believe in a certain belief.

Oh I have beliefs .. the difference here is that my objective in life is to distinguish what are beliefs, (and what aren't), to the best of my abilitiies. Many people wouldn't have a clue about how to go about doing that.
I view it as part of the process of acquiring wisdom (perhaps).

 

[SelfSim]

I thought scientists such as yourself call that a “theory”.

No .. its conditional logic (as signified by the 'if').

 

[SelfSim]

So it is or isn’t?

Its irrelevant.

 

[imisswarmth]

Oh I have beliefs .. the difference here is that my objective in life is to distinguish what are beliefs, (and what aren't), to the best of my abilitiies. Many people wouldn't have a clue about how to go about doing that.
I view it as part of the process of acquiring wisdom (perhaps).

You think that’s new?

 

[imisswarmth]

Its irrelevant.

Your thoughts aren’t irrelevant. Your an amazing person.

shoot I just learned tonight that I’m actually bad. So I decided to join a Christian site with all the answers of how come I suck so much.

 

[imisswarmth]

No .. its conditional logic (as signified by the 'if').

We can make it seem more or less at any time. That is the beauty of it. It is our choice to call it anything we call it. The fact remains, it’s either true or false. Am I right?

Whether I am right or wrong, we all seek, love, enjoy the truth.

Whether your belief is in science or God. We all seek truth.

 

[SelfSim]

We all seek truth.

.. and the closest science ever comes to the truth concept, is never better than the last best tested theory.

 

[imisswarmth]

.. and the closest science ever comes to the truth concept, is never better than the last best tested theory.

Truth is a solid foundation that all are safe in.

 

[Ken-1122]

.. and that is a model you hold in your mind.

No evidence of any mind independence there.

No evidence for any mind dependence either. It's just that I see no reason to assume mind dependence, and I have lots of reasons to assume mind independence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By that logic, I can claim that other people have already proved you wrong, and since I don't have to re-represent all of that, I can just say that you need to do your homework.

You make it sound as if I'm not going to present to you anything on the concept of either praxis or epistemology. I didn't say that I wouldn't. I'm simply saying that I don't have to rewrite the entire banquet of materials that those more competent that I have already written, whether those more competent individuals agree or disagree with me. See what I'm saying? I'm not sure you do because if you did, you wouldn't have offered this misconstrual of what I'm still attempting to get across to you and to which (it seems) you've plugged your ears.

See how bad that works?

No, not really.

I'm on a DEBATE site to engage in DEBATES with people.

Part of participating in a DEBATE is to clearly and unambiguously communicate your arguments.

If you aren't willing to do that, I'd say it is you, not me, who is in the wrong place.

And......what pray tell is debate even for if it's not for attempting to win both a point and to persuade? No one I know just debates in order to be a talking head. Are you here on CF to debate in order to just be a talking head, or to be heard and considered and thereby perhaps be heeded so that we ignorant Christians ... might change our deficient worldviews? Which is it, Kylie? Don't play game here with me on this. I'm an educated individual and I'm not going to fall for you rhetorical debate tactic to obfuscate.

Which is it?
Which is it?
Which it it?

So we should test ideas, and testing usually involves repeating the test. Sounds good, I'm all for that.

So what was that you said back in post 873 where you said, "simply coming up with "a way to test" some idea isn't necessarily to then indeed begin a process where you indeed are testing that idea."

No, you've misunderstood. I think you're interpreting what you think I'm insinuating or referring to in my meaning because your mind has preconceived notions about where I'm going with my insistence in telling you to 're-evaluate' your epistemology and praxis.

Ah yes, the arrogant attitude of, "In time you'll see that I was right and you were foolish to disagree."

I'm arrogant? Really? Do tell? Do you tell your professors at the university that they're arrogant if they disagree with you and are confident that you, the student, is wrong on some point?

No, I'm not arrogant. Assured maybe, but not arrogant. But yes, I'm not the 'usual' Christian person you've been talking to on this forum, Kylie. Maybe let that sink into your mind. I'm not going to be played by you nor anyone else. So, you can either decide to engage in some academic thinking that I don't think you've done before, or......................just run away.

Yes you did bring up the topic of forcing people to change. In post 873 you said:

"Moreover, I have to wonder about the consistency between the principle that:

1) One shouldn't attempt to change another person's worldview

and
2) Coming onto a public forum that is anti-thetical to one's one worldview a priori, before any discussion has yet ensued with a one of various individuals."​

Right, and THAT response was in reference to you having said that you supposedly don't believe in changing anyone's point of view; my point is to insist that THAT is exactly what your purpose here on CF is to do. Is it not?

 

[SelfSim]

No evidence for any mind dependence either. It's just that I see no reason to assume mind dependence, and I have lots of reasons to assume mind independence.

Except mind dependence is not an assumption (science isn't based on any initial assumptions posited as 'being true'). It is a logical conclusion which is based on the output data of an objectively testable hypothesis. Here it is:
The MDR Hypothesis (post#893) states:

2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind'.

.. and in post #892 I demonstrated, by referencing the Wiki page on Atomic theory, how various scientific minds have changed 'what an atom is' throughout history. Let's look at a specific example .. take the Bohr Model description here. I'll highlight the mind dependent part:

In atomic physics, the Bohr model or Rutherford–Bohr model, presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913, is a system consisting of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—similar to the structure of the Solar System, but with attraction provided by electrostatic forces in place of gravity.

Then Bohr changed it:

Quantum theory revolutionized physics at the beginning of the 20th century, when Max Planck and Albert Einstein postulated that light energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete amounts known as quanta (singular, quantum). In 1913, Niels Bohr incorporated this idea into his Bohr model of the atom, in which an electron could only orbit the nucleus in particular circular orbits with fixed angular momentum and energy, its distance from the nucleus (i.e., their radii) being proportional to its energy.

So there is some evidence for atoms being mind dependent and none for: atoms being something which exist independently from our minds.

And so, now I raise the question: How could: 'what an atom is', have changed so much, if atoms, (or matter, which is composed of them), were totally independent of human influence, eh? Answer me that? I mean they shouldn't change if they are totally mind independent 'things, which exist' and were just waiting to be discovered would they?

The same applies for matter and trees (which are composed of atoms).
Is 'a tree': a bush, a shrub, a log with branches, a pagan god (Druidism), ..? It all depends on the description of the perception an individual holds in their minds. There is commonality and differences because no two minds think in precisely alike ways. The conversations in these forums are evidence for that).

Now if we look at the distinction of 'belief':

'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

we'll be able to see much more clearly where 'things existing independently from our minds' comes from in our thinking. But one has to actually look in order to see that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Except mind dependence is not an assumption (science isn't based on any initial assumptions posited as 'being true'). It is a logical conclusion which is based on the output data of an objectively testable hypothesis. Here it is:
The MDR Hypothesis (post#893) states:

So different people will observe my tree slightly different. That doesn’t mean their thoughts will alter the existence of the tree!

.. and in post #892 I demonstrated, by referencing the Wiki page on Atomic theory, how various scientific minds have changed 'what an atom is' throughout history. Let's look at a specific example .. take the Bohr Model description here. I'll highlight the mind dependent part:
Then Bohr changed it:So there is some evidence for atoms being mind dependent and none for: atoms being something which exist independently from our minds.

And so, now I raise the question: How could: 'what an atom is', have changed so much, if atoms, (or matter, which is composed of them), were totally independent of human influence, eh? Answer me that?

All that means is they got it wrong the first time, so the made a correction.
If the existence of the tree in my front lawn is mind dependent; that would mean its existence could be altered strictly by human thought. Obviously you understand this is not the case; do you agree?

 

[SelfSim]

So different people will observe my tree slightly different. That doesn’t mean their thoughts will alter the existence of the tree!
...
All that means is they got it wrong the first time, so the made a correction.
If the existence of the tree in my front lawn is mind dependent; that would mean its existence could be altered strictly by human thought. Obviously you understand this is not the case; do you agree?

You should read what I've said again so you'd know what it is about. The issue is what you mean by 'existence', (or 'reality') in that statement, and where that meaning comes from. I think the issue may be a little subtle for you, but here's the synopsis.

Let's start with the basics. 'Existence' (or 'Reality') is quite clearly a word. I mean, I just wrote down a word, and put it in quotes, I should think that would be rather uncontroversial. Now, words have intended meanings, so when someone writes 'existence', they have an intended meaning for using that word. How are we doing so far?

OK, let's see if we can continue. Different people mean different things by a word. To find out what they mean, you must follow the process they are using to give it meaning. If that process is different, the meaning is different. If that process is science, a scientific meaning results. To see the scientific meaning, look at how the word is used in science. We say things like 'electrons are real', or 'atoms are real'. We even have 'virtual particles' to tell you when we are talking about the ones that we don't mean are 'real'. Now you are ready for the final step.

The meaning that emerges from the process of doing science can be observed to depend on the mind using it, in a variety of ways. That does not mean the mind using it is unconstrained, we observe there are constraints, and we observe there are consistencies. What is the 'source' of these constraints and consistencies is never tested, but it is modeled, and the models are tested .. in ways that depend on our minds. The purpose of creating and testing these models is to give meaning to the word 'existence' (or 'reality'), and the process of doing that, quite demonstrably depends on our minds. This is science.

The other way of doing it, is by way of belief, which doesn't call for testing, but it still involves models which depend on the perceptions created by our minds which, when described using language, give meaning to the word 'existence' .. and in this case, your 'tree' example above does that when you describe your perception of it 'being real' without ever testing it .. therefore its just a belief that its 'real' .. by assertion.