Our Response to Anti-Theism

[IWantGod]

Just present a “non-physical” entity,

I didn’t present anything. I pointed out that metaphysical naturalism contradicts what we experience, particularly goal direction. You can’t accept that so you thought you would create a straw-man.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[IWantGod]

I wish you the best, but I am not interested in wasting more time. The suggestion to read a book is NOT an ad-hominem attack, just a friendly suggestion to help you.

Yeah right.

 

[IWantGod]

And what part of the word “ relations ” didn’t you understand?

The fallacious version you’re thinking of.

 

[IWantGod]

Ah, so the part that you disagree with.

I tend to disagree with fallacies. Loool

 

[IWantGod]

I’ve noticed that you tend to disagree with a lot of things. In fact it would seem to be just about everything that doesn’t conform to your personal worldview. Is that how metaphysics works…how interesting.

If that were the case i’d be a young earth creationist.

No, i say what i think because i really think that it follows logically in despite of what i want.

 

[MarysLurker]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

But how can we get through to people who are set in believing that religion is evil or God cannot exist?
Should we even bother talking to the people who have these views?
What are your thoughts?

Yes, we should talk to them. But as you can see from this thread, the response is likely to be a veiled version of “you are a Catholic, therefore you are wrong” as it was here.

It’s a work of mercy to instruct the ignorant. But once you’ve done that, your obligation ends. You have to accept (and this is hard) that God will go on where you left off, using other instruments (be they people, experiences, miracles, or anything else) to carry on.

 

[STT]

If love exists for a purpose ( rather than an effect that arbitrarily exists for no reason and just-so-happens to favour the continuation of human life ), then there is goal direction in it’s existence, and where there is a goal there is a plan and ultimately an intelligent mind behind it, even if natural physical processes mediate the effect.

The reason i arrive at this conclusion is not only because we see an analogy of this when humans create something for a desired end. Rather it is because the existence of self-directing goal directed behaviour, or something simply being actualised in service of a purpose, is inconsistent with the idea of a reality that is comprised entirely of blind natural impersonal processes that do not by their very nature act for a goal or an end. If everything is comprised of that, then it makes no rational sense that the opposite exists in any nature in which this process finds itself to be a part .

Is love that we experience is the result of neural activity in our brain? If yes, then we can argue that there is no purpose in neural level therefore there is no purpose at all in existence of creature hence there is no purpose for existence of love as well. The existence of love only assures that a community of agents can survive which this, survivability, is the result of evolution. It is well know that evolution is not a goal directed process.

In fact there are no goals or ends in that world and thus to act for the preservation of life ( life being a goal and an end in itself ) is meaningless, because there is no objective thing that is life which requires preservation ( only blind physical processes ); thus any actuality or natural impulse to that end would be to an end that doesn’t actually exist, which equally doesn’t make sense of the fact that we actually do have a natural impulse to live and preserve it. Much less does it make sense that we should discover experiences that are meaningful in and of themselves - this especially since the drama of human life is driven by the meaning we find in our emotional experiences; not physics . This is why i reject metaphysical naturalism, and given the argument i think i am rationally justified in doing so.

Of course life is meaningless. I have never met any person who could tell me what is the meaning of life. Do you know?

 

[IWantGod]

So explain to me how it is that I can put a bunch of ugly things together, and get something beautiful?

How can the whole have an attribute that the parts don’t?

This my last post.

First of all what do you mean when you speak of making something beautiful out of something ugly? And how does it apply to the question of goal direction?

Let me give an example of what i think you mean. Very few people if any find the appearance of poo desirable. You might say it’s ugly. But in principle you could use that poo to paint what most people would consider to be a beautiful face. Now while the poo is ugly there is no contradiction in the fact that it comprises the work of a beautiful face since while there is uglyness in the poo it has been organised in such a way as to produce an image of beuaty which is more than the sum of the poo.

However. Goal direction is a different matter entirely. You cannot have a goal directed activity that is comprised only of the kind of activity that is not acting for a goal because it’s constituent parts are solely responsible for the activity itself given that this activity is all it’s made of. Thus there is clearly a contradiction, whereas the first example has no contradiction at all. Kind of like where a wave is also a particle, it is also true that the poo is also a beautiful face.

Goal direction, in the sense of consciously making a plan and acting towards a goal, cannot be the end result of a blind natural process alone because goal direction is an entirely different order of activity.

 

[MarysLurker]

This my last post.

Mine too, since they just keep up with the ad hominems instead of responding to the argument. Thread untracked.

 

[Economist]

Assertion, and one that makes no sense.

Why don’t you study some neuroscience? It is fun!

Metaphysical naturalism ( wikipedia ) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

Concepts, principles, relations, activities, attributes are all part of the physical reality, but not all are composed of elementary particles. As I said, you have no idea what metaphysical naturalism IS. The fact that you copied a definition does not indicate understanding. Actually, it shows the lack of it.

Let me ask you, can you put an abstraction in a flask? No you can’t, because like you said it’s not physical.

Indeed. But an abstraction is physically inert. It cannot influence the physical reality.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I wasn’t aware that computers were being used to deterct metaphysical entities

Well, what do you think? Does π have a metaphysical existence?

Obviously not. It’s a simple mathematical ratio.

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

The activity of the atoms.

Assertion, and one that makes no sense.

Haven’t we seen that introducing chemical into the body and their consequent activity within the body (simple atoms in motion) alters our emotional state.

Someone could have these substances introduced without even them knowing about them and the simple chemical reactions could make them happy, confident etc. Exactly, and I 'll repeat that, EXACTLY as the body produces these changes itself.

Simple motions of atoms.

 

[Economist]

Haven’t we seen that introducing chemical into the body and their consequent activity within the body (simple atoms in motion) alters our emotional state.

Someone could have these substances introduced without even them knowing about them and the simple chemical reactions could make them happy, confident etc. Exactly, and I 'll repeat that, EXACTLY as the body produces these changes itself.

Simple motions of atoms.

Correct. And one more observation. That much touted “love” is just the effect of certain chemicals in the brain. There are several different types of chemicals, producing different types of “love”. The chemical compound which creates the wonderful feeling of a “fresh, new” love are strikingly similar to the effect of stimulants (like cocaine), while the feelings experienced by a long term loving relationship of an elderly couple is very similar to the effect of depressants (like opium). Our own body creates these chemicals.

Inserting electrodes into the proper area of the brain, and introducing a mild current will create happiness, or pain, depending upon the area of the brain. When this experiment was performed on lab rats, and they were allowed to stimulate their own brain (via depressing a pedal), they were stimulating the pleasure center until they were literally exhausted near to death.

Of course there are some people, who will exclaim: “Assertion!”, thereby exposing their ignorance.

 

[MarysLurker]

Ok, since you did me the honor of actually responding, I’ll bite one more time.

Obviously not. It’s a simple mathematical ratio.

If π is so simple, why has no one figured it out yet?

Anyway, let’s cut to the chase. Your position is that π (pi) is a “simple mathematical ratio” and mathematical ratios do not have metaphysical existence. So what you are claiming is that transcendental numbers like π, e, etc. are not metaphysical. In that case, your fight is with Merriam and Webster, not me:

metaphysical​

adjective

meta·phys·i·cal | \ ˌme-tə-ˈfi-zi-kəl \

Definition of metaphysical​

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : of or relating to metaphysicsmetaphysical truth
metaphysical speculation

2a : of or relating to the transcendent (see TRANSCENDENT sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm— John Dewey

b : SUPERNATURALfate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have thee crown’d— William Shakespeare

3 : highly abstract or abstruse also : THEORETICAL metaphysical reasoning

There is no argument that π itself is somehow perceptible to the senses. We have to use an abstract to represent it to the senses, to wit 3.14159… But that’s an abstract, not π itself.

Maybe what you’d like to do is amend the dictionary and delete senses 1, 2a, and 2b and confine metaphysics to sense 3. In other words, since transcendentals (including transcendental numbers) are metaphysical, you deny the existence of any and all transcendentals by declaring them too abstruse/obscure/mysterious for anyone to understand, such that all abstruse things are effectively fictitious. π goes in the mystery box along with unicorns and leprechauns. But then you’d have to put math itself in the same mystery box, along with all the hard sciences which depend on math in order to function. In fine, you’re not arguing from science, math, or reason: you’re arguing from your own authority, and will use any number of logical fallacies (you’ve got ad hominem, special pleading, and no true Scotsman so far) to get there.

 

[Wozza]

Ok, since you did me the honor of actually responding, I’ll bite one more time.

Wozza:

Obviously not. It’s a simple mathematical ratio.

If π is so simple, why has no one figured it out yet?

Anyway, let’s cut to the chase. Your position is that π (pi) is a “simple mathematical ratio” and mathematical ratios do not have metaphysical existence. So what you are claiming is that transcendental numbers like π, e, etc. are not metaphysical. In that case, your fight is with Merriam and Webster, not me:

metaphysical​

adjective

meta·phys·i·cal | \ ˌme-tə-ˈfi-zi-kəl \

Definition of metaphysical​

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : of or relating to metaphysicsmetaphysical truth
metaphysical speculation

2a : of or relating to the transcendent (see TRANSCENDENT sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm— John Dewey

b : SUPERNATURALfate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have thee crown’d— William Shakespeare

3 : highly abstract or abstruse also : THEORETICAL metaphysical reasoning

There is no argument that π itself is somehow perceptible to the senses. We have to use an abstract to represent it to the senses, to wit 3.14159… But that’s an abstract, not π itself.

Maybe what you’d like to do is amend the dictionary and delete senses 1, 2a, and 2b and confine metaphysics to sense 3. In other words, since transcendentals (including transcendental numbers) are metaphysical, you deny the existence of any and all transcendentals by declaring them too abstruse/obscure/mysterious for anyone to understand, such that all abstruse things are effectively fictitious. π goes in the mystery box along with unicorns and leprechauns. But then you’d have to put math itself in the same mystery box, along with all the hard sciences which depend on math in order to function. In fine, you’re not arguing from science, math, or reason: you’re arguing from your own authority, and will use any number of logical fallacies (you’ve got ad hominem, special pleading, and no true Scotsman so far) to get there.

Maybe you didn’t do maths. Certainly never got to calculus. Because the mathematical definition of transcendental certainly doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The only thing a transcendental function transcends is algebra. That is, it cannot be expressed by simple addition, subtraction, multiplication etc. Hence the name. You are going to need to look that up if you want to continue.

 

[Economist]

Maybe you didn’t do maths. Certainly never got to calculus. Because the mathematical definition of transcendental certainly doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Indeed. The proper designations are: “algebraic” numbers and “transcendent” numbers. Algebraic numbers are the ones, which are the roots of a polynomial equation. If the equation is “linear” - which means that the variable in it is of the power of “1”. These numbers are called “rational” numbers - where the word “rational” means a ratio of two integers. It has nothing to do with “rationality”.

The numbers which cannot be expressed as the roots of such polynomial equations like “pi” or “e” and the like, are called “transcendent” numbers, again having nothing to do with the other meaning of “transcendent”. Unlucky nomenclature, that is all.

 

[MarysLurker]

Maybe you didn’t do maths. Certainly never got to calculus. Because the mathematical definition of transcendental certainly doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Is anyone keeping track of the ad hominem strikes?

Unlucky nomenclature, that is all.

Is π itself (NOT an abstraction) perceptible to the senses? Yes or no? If yes, feel free to fully express it (but I am not responsible if you crash your computer in trying).

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Maybe you didn’t do maths. Certainly never got to calculus. Because the mathematical definition of transcendental certainly doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Is anyone keeping track of the ad hominem strikes?

Unlucky nomenclature, that is all.

Is π itself (NOT an abstraction) perceptible to the senses? Yes or no? If yes, feel free to fully express it (but I am not responsible if you crash your computer in trying).

An ad hominem is an attack on a person to belittle their argument. I didn’t need to do that. All that was required was to give the correct definition of transcendental as it relates to mathematical functions. Not knowing that definition means that you have limited knowledge of maths. It is a basic definition that anyone would come across even doing trigonometry, let alone calculus.

You should not take my word for it. You should look it up and familiarise yourself with it. If you haven’t looked it up yet, I would recommend that you do.

Here’s a simple explanation: Transcendental Numbers

 

[MarysLurker]

An ad hominem is an attack on a person to belittle their argument. I didn’t need to do that. All that was required was to give the correct definition of transcendental as it relates to mathematical functions. Not knowing that definition means that you have limited knowledge of maths.

Another ad hominem. Look, when you tell an interlocutor that they’re not educated enough to understand what you are talking about, you are attacking the speaker, not the argument.

I asked you a question, and since you know your maths, you can answer it, right?

Is π perceptible to the senses (again, π itself, not an abstraction)?

 

[Economist]

Is π itself (NOT an abstraction)

“pi” is an abstraction. Just like “1”, or “2” or “sqrt(2)” - the diagonal of square. Or any other number. Of course the concepts of “heavy” or “light” or “near” or “far”, or “difficult” or “easy”… these are all abstractions.