Our Response to Anti-Theism

[MarysLurker]

“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.

You’re arguing that all numbers are abstractions. I wouldn’t have a problem by that if by abstraction you meant the philosophical term abstracta, but that’s not what you mean. By abstract you mean a mental shortcut devised by humans to understand something in nature. Counting numbers on the number line fit that mold, but pi does not meet that definition, nor does any other transcendental number.

With that in mind, is it perceptible to the senses or not?

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

“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.

You’re arguing that all numbers are abstractions. I wouldn’t have a problem by that if by abstraction you meant the philosophical term abstracta, but that’s not what you mean. By abstract you mean a mental shortcut devised by humans to understand something in nature. Counting numbers on the number line fit that mold, but pi does not meet that definition, nor does any other transcendental number.

With that in mind, is it perceptible to the senses or not?

This is quite a scatter gun approach you are using. Transcendental in the mathematical sense, metaphysical and that which is perceptible to the senses are all different things.

Heat is perceptible to the senses but is not metaphysical or transcendental. Ultra violet isn’t. So that means…what exactly?

It might be easier if you stated your argument so we know where you want to go rather than asking about mathematical functions.

Did you check that link by the way?

 

[MarysLurker]

Heat is perceptible to the senses but is not metaphysical or transcendental. Ultra violet isn’t. So that means…what exactly?

I’m asking about transcendental in the sense of being imperceptible to the senses. “To the senses” has its customary meaning of including the use of lab equipment to augment the senses, etc.

This is quite a scatter gun approach you are using. Transcendental in the mathematical sense, metaphysical and that which is perceptible to the senses are all different things.

I’m asking you whether these definitions overlap as concerns transcendental numbers. I know you say no, but then I ask you why, and you give the same argument as the response—which is circular reasoning.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Heat is perceptible to the senses but is not metaphysical or transcendental. Ultra violet isn’t. So that means…what exactly?

I’m asking about transcendental in the sense of being imperceptible to the senses. “To the senses” has its customary meaning of including the use of lab equipment to augment the senses, etc.

This is quite a scatter gun approach you are using. Transcendental in the mathematical sense, metaphysical and that which is perceptible to the senses are all different things.

I’m asking you whether these definitions overlap as concerns transcendental numbers. I know you say no, but then I ask you why, and you give the same argument as the response—which is circular reasoning.

I think you’ve been heading down this track for so long that you’ve forgotten what the original point being made was. Which was a suggestion that someone thought that love was something metaphysical. You thought to counter that.

Love is an emotion. And it’s perceptable to the senses by definition. Here’s one definition:

‘Emotion is a mental state associated with the nervous system brought on by chemical changes variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure’.

So it’s not transcedental according to where your argument has ended up. And as you are directly conflating transcendental with metaphysical, it appears it ain’t that either.

Now you have come full circle and have confirmed that which you thought to deny.

Where to next?

 

[MarysLurker]

I think you’ve been heading down this track for so long that you’ve forgotten what the original point being made was. Which was a suggestion that someone thought that love was something metaphysical. You thought to counter that.

Love is an emotion. And it’s perceptable to the senses by definition. Here’s one definition:

‘Emotion is a mental state associated with the nervous system brought on by chemical changes variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure’.

So it’s not transcedental according to where your argument has ended up. And as you are directly conflating transcendental with metaphysical, it appears it ain’t that either.

Now you have come full circle and have confirmed that which you thought to deny.

Where to next?

Is it really so hard to answer the question of whether π is perceptible to the senses? Given what you’ve just said, I think at this point it’s safe to assume that you know very well what the answer is (it is not), and you know where this is going (things exist that are not perceptible to the senses, such as π), and that you… just… don’t… want… to… go… there… because you will next need to evaluate whether other things exist that are also imperceptible to the senses (such as love, and God).

Think about this. The Christian believes, of course, that God is Love with a capital “L,” and that Love with a capital L, like π, exists but is yet immaterial. Also like π, it is partially sensible via abstraction (such as by the emotional love-with-small-l that you just described.) Unless you’re prepared to declare that π doesn’t exist, you must at least entertain the possibility that we Christians are right about everything.

 

[Anrakyr]

No, people tend to put up walls that are not warranted in-order to block out the view from the other-side. Perhaps they don’t like what they see?

For most of us it’s disgust or unacceptable logic.
Boiled down it’s;

if God is God and this is His world, He is cruel.

Or

“God is illogical.”

So i guess a structural grouping of atoms would love if there were no God? I find that very difficult to believe, and that has nothing to do with my faith.

More like relief.

 

[Wozza]

…other things exist that are also imperceptible to the senses (such as love, and God).

So you think that the emotion of love is not perceptible to the senses. Now why didn’t you say that straight off and save all this mathematical nonsense?

Maybe you sense nothing when you feel love. Or fear. Or anger. In which case I can see why you’d say that.

Ah, but you’ll probably end up saying that you can’t see it or touch it or smell it. Like maths or north or ultra violet or gravity or sport. I didn’t know there was so much transcedental stuff!

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Did you read that link?

 

[MarysLurker]

So you think that the emotion of love is not perceptible to the senses. Now why didn’t you say that straight off and save all this mathematical nonsense?

Maybe you sense nothing when you feel love. Or fear. Or anger. In which case I can see why you’d say that.

Ah, but you’ll probably end up saying that you can’t see it or touch it or smell it. Like maths or north or ultra violet or gravity or sport. I didn’t know there was so much transcedental stuff!

I didn’t say that the emotion of love was imperceptible to the senses. I said that the non-transcendent emotion of love was a sensible (as in, perceptible to the senses) abstraction of the transcendent Love-big-L, i.e. God—just as the non-transcendent 3.14… is a sensible abstraction of the transcendent number π.

 

[Neithan]

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?

Strive to be good, to become a saint; that’s the best our religion can offer the world, and it is substantial. Think about what this world would be like if everyone was a saint! If someone thinks God cannot exist, then they may need to engage philosophy of religion more unless they are harbouring an ideology. In that case, they may be boxing themselves in to a point of view that no one else can really get them out of. That’s how madness develops — tight, self-referential logic. We can pray for them, be a friend, and recommend that they seek out professional help.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So you think that the emotion of love is not perceptible to the senses. Now why didn’t you say that straight off and save all this mathematical nonsense?

Maybe you sense nothing when you feel love. Or fear. Or anger. In which case I can see why you’d say that.

Ah, but you’ll probably end up saying that you can’t see it or touch it or smell it. Like maths or north or ultra violet or gravity or sport. I didn’t know there was so much transcedental stuff!

I didn’t say that the emotion of love was imperceptible to the senses. I said that the non-transcendent emotion of love was a sensible (as in, perceptible to the senses) abstraction of the transcendent Love-big-L, i.e. God—just as the non-transcendent 3.14… is a sensible abstraction of the transcendent number π.

Riiight. So the ‘normal’ lower case love (which we were talking about) is perceptible to the senses, is not transcendental and not metaphyisical. Now why didn’t I say that.

Oh, hang on. I did.

I wonder what all those posts were about. Why didn’t you just agree with me in the first place?

 

[MarysLurker]

Why didn’t you just agree with me in the first place?

Because you don’t seem to think that small-l love leads to big-L Love by way of abstraction.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Why didn’t you just agree with me in the first place?

Because you don’t seem to think that small-l love leads to big-L Love by way of abstraction.

That’s because I tend to ignore the arguments of anyone who posts comments that capitalise words such as Love and Meaning and Existence.

 

[MarysLurker]

That’s because I tend to ignore the arguments of anyone who posts comments that capitalise words such as Love and Meaning and Existence.

That’s not a valid argument, as you know.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

That’s because I tend to ignore the arguments of anyone who posts comments that capitalise words such as Love and Meaning and Existence.

That’s not a valid argument, as you know.

It wasn’t an argument, Mary. It was a comment.

I know what love means. I know what existence means. They don’t need capital letters - unless you’re German. And even then not if you’re speaking English. If you say Love as opposed to love then you are flagging the fact that you mean something totally different to what I was talking about.

Common ground, Mary. We should always look for common ground. I was talking about love (little l) which prompted your multiple posts on pi. You knew what I was talking about. But now, having lost that argument, you have seen fit to decalare that you were talking about something else.

See why I try to ignore discussions with those who capitalise uneccesarily?

 

[MarysLurker]

having lost that argument

Um… no. We never finished. We left off with you not wanting to answer the question of whether pi was transcendental as in beyond the senses.

Maybe you misunderstood the point all along? We believe that God is transcendental as in beyond the senses but also discloses Himself through creation, and that Love as in capital L is God’s essential nature. So do you agree that the sensible emotional love we feel MAY (I’m not saying I’ve yet proven IS) be an abstraction of something transcendent, the way that our estimates of pi are abstractions of a transcendent number?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

having lost that argument

Um… no. We never finished. We left off with you not wanting to answer the question of whether pi was transcendental as in beyond the senses.

So do you agree that the sensible emotional love we feel MAY (I’m not saying I’ve yet proven IS) be an abstraction of something transcendent, the way that our estimates of pi are abstentions of a transcendent number?

Your proposal denies the very question you are asking. If love is an emotion, as you just said, then it is physically experienced. It cannot be metaphysical. Which was the original statement.

And you are throwing terms like abstractions and transcendant and abstentions (?) and estimates and mathematical functions like confetti.

Love is an emotion. It is felt physically and emotionally. The emotions are experienced by physical, chemical and electrical changes within the body. There is zero doubt about this. There is nothing other worldly about it. It is not something that happens outside the physical world. It is not metaphysical.

 

[MarysLurker]

If love is an emotion, as you just said, then it is physically experienced. It cannot be metaphysical.

But it can be an abstraction of something metaphysical. Just ask Plato.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If love is an emotion, as you just said, then it is physically experienced. It cannot be metaphysical.

But it can be an abstraction of something metaphysical. Just ask Plato.

I can’t. He’s dead. And he knew nothing about neuroscience. He could only play the cards he was dealt.

I’d suggest not going back two and a half thousand years to look to deny what we now know about how people actually work.

 

[MarysLurker]

I can’t. He’s dead. And he knew nothing about neuroscience. He could only play the cards he was dealt.

I’d suggest not going back two and a half thousand years to look to deny what we now know about how people actually work.

Again, you’re presupposing materialism (to wit, that the brain is all there is to a person) with a big helping of recency bias. I gave you an argument against materialism based on pi itself being transcendental yet sensible via abstraction. You have yet to answer; you just sounded the retreat and then declared victory.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I can’t. He’s dead. And he knew nothing about neuroscience. He could only play the cards he was dealt.

I’d suggest not going back two and a half thousand years to look to deny what we now know about how people actually work.

Again, you’re presupposing materialism (to wit, that the brain is all there is to a person) with a big helping of recency bias. I gave you an argument against materialism based on pi itself being transcendental yet sensible via abstraction. You have yet to answer; you just sounded the retreat and then declared victory.

I’m not presupposing it. Love is an emotion. You have already agreed that. Emotions are physical and mental effects caused by physical, electrical and chemical changes within the body. As I said, we can do this artificially. If it were metaphysical we couldn’t.

So there’s my evidence for it not being metaphysical. Where is your’s that it is? And if you mention circles and diamters again, I’m calling a close on the discussion.