The objective universe

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Objective. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. Based on observable phenomena. Of or having to do with a material object.


Sin_is_fun kindly presented us with the objective truth regarding our existance (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0). Likewise, AlAyeti has on many occasions provided us with his objective take on the world. Unfortunately, these two "truths" are entirely adverse to one another.


How can we claim to live in an objective universe, when absolutely EVERYTHING we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell is a matter of perception?

Sin and Al percieve two different truths. In an objective universe there would be no differing perceptions. There would be no perception at all. There would only be a material, observable, fact.

I am sure that there is a 'reality'. But how may we claim to know that reality when trapped in a first person role?




I assert that the universe was created by a supreme fuzzy pink platypus, and that our evolutionary ancestors were mind-reading monotremes that treked from pluto on modified flying marshmellows. You may laugh at that theory, but can you prove it wrong?

I believe that we will never achieve a faultless definition of reality, and by no scientific or philosophical means rightfully claim a belief as "truth".

What are your thoughts?

[bernee51]

Objective. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. Based on observable phenomena. Of or having to do with a material object.

...
I am sure that there is a 'reality'. But how may we claim to know that reality when trapped in a first person role?

...
I believe that we will never achieve a faultless definition of reality, and by no scientific or philosophical means rightfully claim a belief as "truth".

What are your thoughts?

Democrites (I think) said "The only reality is atoms and space, al th rest is opinion"

A non-dualist view is that the only reality is consciousness...all else is perception. What we see as the individual self is nothing more than a projection onto the screen that is consciousness.

The only thing that is real is that which does not change nor cease to exist.

[juliod]

I believe that we will never achieve a faultless definition of reality, and by no scientific or philosophical means rightfully claim a belief as "truth".

Yes and no. Philosophically, your position is sound. But it is at a level of philosophy that itself has no value to the individual or society.

As I was saying to ST88, no one can actually live as if they believed that to be true.

We all recognize the fallibility of human senses and reason. The rationalist says "This is the way things are, according to the best information we have at the current time." The religionist says "This is the way things are, according to the revelations of a super-being in whom I have faith." Between those two, we can clearly see that one has made tremendous progress through the last few centuries.

However, the idea that we need a "faultless definition of reality" before we can make statements about truth is not viable. That is just hoping for a status that we can never achieve, and wouldn't be able to work with if we did.

Here's an example that I used with ST88. Just as for your fuzzy pink platypus, you cannot be sure that the meaning of red lights and green lights has not just spontaneously changed overnight, and that everyone else in the world except you is aware of the fact. Since that would have lethal conseqeunces, and as an agnostic you have to consider that it might have happened, you would need to take extreme caution everyday before daring to go out on the street.

Obviously, it is impossible to live that way without being institutionalized for sever psychiatric disorders.

Agnosticism is a sterile wasteland of the mind. Why construct philosophical arguments about how we can never know the truth when you can instead look for evidence of the truth. That's what rationalism and science are all about.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

"Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing". I believe the sooner we accept this the faster we may progress; Not necissarily scientifically, but spiritually and philosophically.

Cite me any theory, something as observable and accepted as gravity, and I guarantee I could come up with a plausible adverse explanation. If an alternative scenario can not be concieved, we may cite the theory as fact. However, given there are an infinite number of possible causes and effects to any given situation, this may never be the case.

You state agnosticism as harmful to progression. This is true in many cases, considering the many people that resort to an agnostic view out pure apathy. However, this does not have to be the case. I do not believe I will ever be able to contrive an unbiased view of reality, but this does not stop me from searching for the best hypothesis based on current knowledge. I have a well defined set of beliefs, I merely do not coregard them as 'facts'.

Many people however, do, and are more than willing to present them as such. I believe this is far more harmful than an admittence of ignorance. As can be observed day by day, conflicting persuasions are the prime cause of human confrontation. Through admitting ignorance however, I believe we make one step closer to peace. In essence, the realization that we all know nothing puts us all on the same page (more or less), making dispute seem pointless. Just an idea.

Athiesm has never made sense to me. You cannot disprove God's existance. To completely throw it out of the realm of possibility seems nothing but closed-mindedness. I know what I believe, or rather, what makes the most sense at the moment. But this does not cause me to cast every other theory out of the realm of possibility. One must keep an open mind if he ever wishes to grow.

Your red light/green light scenario. I accept the possibility that the light's meanings may have spontaniously changed overnight. But given the highly unlikeliness of this scenario, I think I will take my chances. At any rate, I do not think this analogy is entirely accurate, as it may easily be turned against the athiest worldview. For example, you are positive a tornado will never hit your area, and refuse to accept the possibility that one may, therefore do not prepare yourself for the scenario. One day a freak storm hits, and in short, you perish.

The two examples are alike, because in each case there is a small possibility that the worst will strike. However, both the athiest and agnostic will (understandably) take their chances; One out of denial, the other out of a desired state of sanity. Or something like that.

Not entirely sure if that works. You can try it on for size.

[juliod]

"Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing". I believe the sooner we accept this the faster we may progress; Not necissarily scientifically, but spiritually and philosophically.

I believe that it is the rationalists and naturalists who have absorbed this lesson. Once you realize that "truth" does not come through either revelation or personal introspection you are free to seek it in the real World, based on evidence.

But of course "knows nothing" is a bit of hyperbole. Many things can be known. Such as whether a hypothesis fits certain data or not. And whether supernaturalist claims have any substance.

Hence, for the rationalist, truth is a process of testing and retesting.

Cite me any theory, something as observable and accepted as gravity, and I guarantee I could come up with a plausible adverse explanation.

You're confusing observation (facts) with theory (explanation). It is a fact that objects fall toward the center of the earth. It is a theory that all objects attract each other in proportion to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. See? The one explains the other.

Now, if you question the fact in that example, then you are insane or being disruptive and there's no point in argueing. But if you question the theory, then you are on rather difficult ground. I don't think you are likely to come up with an explanation that fits the data as well as the theory of gravity.

There are trivial ways to appear to offer an alternative to the theory of gravity. But just changing the nomenclature doesn't count. Neither does making up a theory that fails to explain. And adding things to the theory that offer no new explanatory power is right out.

we may cite the theory as fact.

A theory can never be a fact.

I do not believe I will ever be able to contrive an unbiased view of reality, but this does not stop me from searching for the best hypothesis based on current knowledge. I have a well defined set of beliefs, I merely do not coregard them as 'facts'.

I would call this set of beliefs "rationalism".

Through admitting ignorance however, I believe we make one step closer to peace. In essence, the realization that we all know nothing puts us all on the same page (more or less), making dispute seem pointless. Just an idea.

Yes. Let us know when you convince the supernaturalists of this...

Athiesm has never made sense to me. You cannot disprove God's existance. To completely throw it out of the realm of possibility seems nothing but closed-mindedness.

No. Supernaturalist claims are just like any other claim. You can examine them and decide true, false, or currently unknown. The claim of the strong atheist (me) is that all existing supernaturalist claims are known to be false.

One must keep an open mind if he ever wishes to grow.

Yes, but as I like to say, unreasonable doubt is not a virtue. When a theory (such as the existance of the christian god) has been falsified it is the duty of honest persons to accept the result. We can always revisit the issue later if new data is found. But we are not in that position at the current time.

I accept the possibility that the light's meanings may have spontaniously changed overnight. But given the highly unlikeliness of this scenario, I think I will take my chances.

If you can conclude that this is an unreasonable possibility I think you shuold reconsider your agnosticism. Most (all, I think) supernaturalist claims has already been falsified. There is more chance of the light changing overnight than there is of the existance of gods, goblins, demons, angels, dragons, etc.

For example, you are positive a tornado will never hit your area, and refuse to accept the possibility that one may, therefore do not prepare yourself for the scenario.

That's not true at all. We have a large government department that predicts the threat of tornados and multiple broadcast networks to spread the word. Since a tornado is an actual possability (although in actuality I will probably never see one) we deal with the threat to a reasonable degree. Not so with unreasonable propositions like dragon attacks or the threat of going to hell.

I can't quite understand why there are agnostics. Given the consequences of being on the wrong side of a god like YHWH I would think that if you thought it were a possability that you would do nothing else other than try to find out if it were true. I mean, are you really sitting here reading the internet while believing that you might be tortured forever in unbearable searing agony for your agnosticism?

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You're confusing observation (facts) with theory (explanation). It is a fact that objects fall toward the center of the earth. It is a theory that all objects attract each other in proportion to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. See? The one explains the other.

Fact. Information corresponding with reality. Something demonstrated to exist in being or in truth. Immutable; incontrovertible.


If this what you mean by 'fact', then I will have to disagree. I am only 99.9% sure that objects fall towards the center of the earth, which is enough to hinder the idea from falling into the "fact" category (as far as I am concerned). We only observe this phenomena through heavily biased perspectives. How can you be sure that your senses are not decieving you, as they have proven themselves capable of on many occasions? Perhaps we are really falling out into space, and the earth just happens to fall with us. Perhaps there are invisible strings of matter that connect us to solid surfaces- like puppets. Perhaps in reality we do not fall at all, but float aimlessly as if in space, our senses conjuring false images of the apparent surroundings.

These scenarios seem farfetched based on current knowledge, but considering our "current knowledge" is only warped speculations gathered through unreliable observations, they are quite possible.

I go beyond questioning theories. I am questioning accepted facts, under the belief that evidence gathered through observation may not necissarily coincide with reality. You may decide for yourself whether I am insane for doing so, but I think my questions are valid.

There are trivial ways to appear to offer an alternative to the theory of gravity. But just changing the nomenclature doesn't count. Neither does making up a theory that fails to explain. And adding things to the theory that offer no new explanatory power is right out.

My intention is not to offer new explanations. It is merely to question the extent of human knowledge. And I believe our knowledge does not extend near far enough to grant us the right to cite any belief as "fact". Such a right belongs only to an omnipresent being (if such a thing exists); something that can view all sides of an issue in an impartial manner.

A theory can never be a fact.

It can if we can prove it as undeniable reality.

But we cannot do that of course (the very point of my argument), so yes, as far as we are concerned, a theory cannot be a fact.

Yes. Let us know when you convince the supernaturalists of this...

Being a supernaturalist does not by definition prevent one from admitting a lack of knowledge, the same way a rationalist is susceptible to asserting a belief as undebatable fact.

The claim of the strong atheist (me) is that all existing supernaturalist claims are known to be false.

How do you know that?

You can't for sure.

Show me God does not exist.

When a theory (such as the existance of the christian god) has been falsified it is the duty of honest persons to accept the result. We can always revisit the issue later if new data is found. But we are not in that position at the current time.

Once again, how can you be sure it is false? Many people have seen all sides of the evidence and still believe (and not just out of stubborness). Seems unfair to deem them as "dishonest" merely because of a differing opinion.

Yes, but as I like to say, unreasonable doubt is not a virtue.

I agree. Unreasonable doubt is not fair grounds to not believe in a theory. I believe in gravity. HOWEVER, I have a shred of doubt against it, therefore cannot deem it as fact.

Once again, the extent of human knowledge (and our right to assert that knowledge) is all I argue against.

If you can conclude that this is an unreasonable possibility I think you shuold reconsider your agnosticism. Most (all, I think) supernaturalist claims has already been falsified. There is more chance of the light changing overnight than there is of the existance of gods, goblins, demons, angels, dragons, etc.

I think our definitions of "unreasonable" differ. I refer to unreasonable as something vaugely possible, but unsubstantiated by evidence. However, as long as there is even a vague possibility, I must pledge agnosticism. We just do not know.

I find athiesm to be truely unreasonable. God's existance cannot be outright disproved, therefore I see no reason to believe as such.

In the court of law, even a shred of doubt is enough to grant a person innocent.

Just for the record, I am an "agnostic christian". So the issue would not be me turning from agnosticism to athiesm as you seem to imply, but from agnosticism to full-blown Christian. You can visit the below link if you are not sure how my "agnostic christiandom" works.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2099

That's not true at all. We have a large government department that predicts the threat of tornados and multiple broadcast networks to spread the word. Since a tornado is an actual possability (although in actuality I will probably never see one) we deal with the threat to a reasonable degree. Not so with unreasonable propositions like dragon attacks or the threat of going to hell.

Dude. It's an example. Hypothetically, there would be no storm warnings. Kind of like how the meteorologist on TV will not broadcast a "God warning" if he happened to pop up on the radar. You would have no such premonitory, and would be tough out of luck.

Here is where you and I truely come at odds. I find the threat of hell to be a reasonable proposition, therefore worth preparing for.

[juliod]

I go beyond questioning theories. I am questioning accepted facts, under the belief that evidence gathered through observation may not necissarily coincide with reality. You may decide for yourself whether I am insane for doing so, but I think my questions are valid.

If you take that too far, then yes, I will write you off as insane or disruptive.

However, I don't think we need go so far.

Let's make some facts. Get a coin and a notebook. Write down the type of coin. Hold it up in the air and drop it. Write down how high you held in and what happened afterwards. Did it fall roughly in the direction of the center of the earth?

You now have a "fact" and sufficient evidence to convince any ordinary observer. There may have been some extraordinary circumstances at the time of your experiment, or you may be lying in your notebook. But unless and until we find evidence of those we can accept your notes.

If you can't do this experiment, or continue to insist that you don't actually know the result even though you did it yourself, then I will be forced to conclude that you don't want to pursue something called "truth" and/or are playing some philosophical game.

But since gravity is something that anyone can verify for themselves, and can repeatedly verify until they are satisfied, I don't see any reason to tolerate someone who denies it as a fact.

It can if we can prove it as undeniable reality.

No. A theory is an explanation. I think there is a lot of confusion about this, since we often use the same words for both the facts and the theory that explains them. Gravity and Evolution both are in this catagory.

Observations of gravitational effects (like the coin-drop) are facts. The theory of gravity (with actual math) is an explanation of the facts in a larger framework.

For example, the theory of gravity states that the force on the coin is proportional to the product of the masses of the coin and the earth, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the coin and the center of the earth. However, your facts (observations) can never verify this theory. Since the mass of the coin is insignificant compared to the earth, and since the distance the coin moves is insignificant compared to the distance to the center of the earth, it is impossible with improvised equipment to measure accurately enough to tell. But the theory of gravity explains your facts, and also explains why you can't measure gravity with a simple coin-based experiment. But an explanation cannot be a fact.

Being a supernaturalist does not by definition prevent one from admitting a lack of knowledge, the same way a rationalist is susceptible to asserting a belief as undebatable fact.

I don't think there are many supernaturalists who don't claim some sort of "absolute" knowledge. And a rationalist who asserts an undebatable fact is No True Rationalist.

Re: strong atheism:

How do you know that?

You can't for sure.

Show me God does not exist.

There are two recent threads about strong atheism in this subforum....

Once again, how can you be sure it is false? Many people have seen all sides of the evidence and still believe (and not just out of stubborness). Seems unfair to deem them as "dishonest" merely because of a differing opinion.

I say that "dishonest" is exactly what they are. And it is themselves they are deceiving. The christian god is false because he is sually described as omniscient and in possession of free will. Can't be. We know that already.

A scientist who refuses to accept the falsification of his or her favorite theory is called a "crank". It's not a virtue.

HOWEVER, I have a shred of doubt against it, therefore cannot deem it as fact.

That's not a viable standard. A person can always have unreasonable doubt. But unreasonable doubt is ...um, unreasonable.

I think our definitions of "unreasonable" differ. I refer to unreasonable as something vaugely possible, but unsubstantiated by evidence.

Different definitions, surely. I use "unreasonable" to mean implausible. Not even in the catagory of "possibly true". It's possible for things to be reasonable, but false.

I find athiesm to be truely unreasonable. God's existance cannot be outright disproved, therefore I see no reason to believe as such.

In most cases (all, in my view) we can say that god doesn't exist. See my thread titled "a defense of strong atheism".

In the court of law, even a shred of doubt is enough to grant a person innocent.

No, it a "reasonable doubt".

Just for the record, I am an "agnostic christian".

It's my view that agnostics are all closet theists.

Dude. It's an example. Hypothetically, there would be no storm warnings. Kind of like how the meteorologist on TV will not broadcast a "God warning" if he happened to pop up on the radar. You would have no such premonitory, and would be tough out of luck.

That's another good way of seeing how god (and dragons and pixie attacks) are not real. If they were there would be a government department tasked with warning the populace (and failing to do so efficiently).

Here is where you and I truely come at odds. I find the threat of hell to be a reasonable proposition, therefore worth preparing for.

The what the hell (pun) are you doing reading the net? I'd be out there looking for evidence of hell.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

If you can't do this experiment, or continue to insist that you don't actually know the result even though you did it yourself, then I will be forced to conclude that you don't want to pursue something called "truth" and/or are playing some philosophical game.

It would be foolish for me to pursue "truth". I will never reach it. I do however pursue an explanation. I can't be sure if it is right, but it can hold me over until I DO discover truth, if any such time comes (presumably after death).

Gravity is a good explanation of my observations. However, there are a few other explanations on the matter that have yet to be disproven. And until they ARE proven false, I cannot count them out of the realm of possibility, and in the same way cannot deem gravity as absolute fact.

You must understand. I do not necissarily argue against accepted theories. I argue against absolutism.

No. A theory is an explanation.

But HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if we had the capabilities and knowledge to accurately determine reality, we could prove a theory as fact.

Explanation. To offer reasons for; to make comprehensible.

If our explanation of the origin of species could be proven to be completely accurate in every aspect, it would cease to be mere theory, right? We could call it fact (or reality).

I say that "dishonest" is exactly what they are. And it is themselves they are deceiving. The christian god is false because he is sually described as omniscient and in possession of free will. Can't be. We know that already.

Don't you think that attitude is a bit arrogant?

You have observed the evidence, and in your opinion this evidence does not support the existance of God. Other people see the same evidence and conclude that God must be real.

There is no dishonesty there. Only different points of view.

Of course some Christians are simply in denial of opposing evidence. But some truly disagree with it.

I will read your thread, but I can't imagine you could have found any evidence against the existance of God. You may have evidence that speaks against the Christian interpretation of God. But as I said before, you can't show me God does not exist, the same way you can't show me the fuzzy pink platypus does not exist. Just because a theory has no material evidence to support it, does not count it out of the realm of possibility. Philosophical evidence certainly counts for something as well, lets not forget.

That's not a viable standard. A person can always have unreasonable doubt. But unreasonable doubt is ...um, unreasonable.

According to your definition (implausible) I would argue that no doubt is unreasonable. Remember, our reason is derived from our senses and observation, both of which have proven themselves to be quite unreliable.

In essence, I would argue that our very power of reason is unreasonable in and of itself!

No, it a "reasonable doubt".

And reasonable doubt is exactly the term I would use against strong athiesm.


Hmm... this conversation is starting to turn circular...

That's another good way of seeing how god (and dragons and pixie attacks) are not real. If they were there would be a government department tasked with warning the populace (and failing to do so efficiently).

Kind of like how they warned us of 9/11?

Some of our biggest threats are ones not even known to exist. For all we know, a swarm of pixies could invade our country tomarrow.

[Bugmaster]

I assert that the universe was created by a supreme fuzzy pink platypus, and that our evolutionary ancestors were mind-reading monotremes that treked from pluto on modified flying marshmellows. You may laugh at that theory, but can you prove it wrong?

Yes and no. No, I cannot prove it wrong with 100%, undeniable certainty. But, fortunately, 99.999999% will do just as well. Since I've never seen this fuzzy platypus thing, and there's no evidence of life on Pluto, and marshmallows aren't capable of spaceflight, etc... We can be pretty sure that your hypothesis is wrong.

All of human experience is like that, really... I don't know with total certainty that apples grow on apple trees, but I can be very, very sure of this, based on all the accumulated evidence.

[juliod]

You must understand. I do not necissarily argue against accepted theories. I argue against absolutism.

Science, atheism, naturalism and rationalism do not resort to absolutism. Only theism and supernaturalists do that (and agnostics: "You can never know the truth.")

The point is that no one has to resort to absolutism in order to make judgements about facts and theories. And inherent in science and rationalism is the ability to change belief as new facts are discovered.

But HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if we had the capabilities and knowledge to accurately determine reality, we could prove a theory as fact.

No no no no no no no no no!

A theory is an explanation. Think of a theory as being a chapter in a textbook. It's not the same thing as the observations or facts that it describes.

A theory is only a human conception. If the earth were blown up tomorrow, all known theories would cease to exist. But the facts or gravity, astrophysics, chemistry, etc would still be true (even if there were no intelligent lifeforms in the universe to observe them).

If our explanation of the origin of species could be proven to be completely accurate in every aspect, it would cease to be mere theory, right? We could call it fact (or reality).

No no no no no!

Your use of the phrase "mere theory" qualifies you for an associates degree in creationism. The word and concept of "theory" does not imply doubt or tentativeness.

Think of this. Your son or daughter punches someone in school. You demand from them an explanation. They say "Jimmy is a dick, so I punched him". The punch is the fact, and may be true or false. The explanation might be true or false too. But if you became absolutely sure that the explanation was true it would still be an explanation, not a fact. In this case you can see this, since "Jimmy is a dick" is an opinion.

Don't you think that attitude is a bit arrogant?

You have observed the evidence, and in your opinion this evidence does not support the existance of God. Other people see the same evidence and conclude that God must be real.

No. I'm saying that we can prove there is no omniscient being with free will. The fact that theists believe it after it has been falsified qualifies them as irrationalists.

There is no dishonesty there. Only different points of view.

Well, fair enough.

And reasonable doubt is exactly the term I would use against strong athiesm.

Yeah, but there a difference here. You're wrong and I'm right.

DanZ