That's true.. lol. He and his ilk do serve purposes. They are tools.

That's the spirit. And those that argue wioth them? They are tools, themselves. Keeps people like me from being bored.

hey stop with the mud throwing
this has slowly been drifting away from a theological debate to one of wits and that isnt necessary...especially when you are fighting over something that neither side can prove that they are right beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Mud-throwing?
Err... sorry? Back to theology, then.
I believe that there is a kind of afterlife. The soul is a collection of ideas, and ideas have to come from somewhere, no? When you die, your soul is ripped to shreds, and re-cycled into new ideas, and (possibly) new souls.

@Onar - kind of a conservation of energy? Energy and matter are not lost... and indeed are not unique to living matter... we take in matter and energy when we breathe, eat, and drink and we expel matter and energy... every few months we replace our blood... every seven years or so all of our cells have been replaced... Ideas? I lose ideas every day... I come up with ideas every day... this varies from minute to minute and there are times when I'm pretty much brain-dead... I don't see ideas operating on the same principle of conservation. An idea is energy that is organized. Organization comes and goes... in a closed system organization is lost over time (entropy)... in life, organization is accumulated/developed/modified (evolution and individual growth and community growth)... in death, organization is lost - broken down.

When I was knocked out to get my wisdom teeth pulled, it was a great void... it was not sleep... I truly felt like I ceased to exist for that period of time. When I "awoke", I was completely unaware of the passage of time. Where did my ideas go during that time? Obviously there were, for the most part, stored in the circuits of my brain (like a hard-drive of a computer) ready to be accessed. They were, to the best of my perception, not being used during that time. I might as well have been turned off like a light switch. It was very strange... though not really eery or disturbing... it's kind of nice to know (even if the answer is not what I would prefer). I guess, essentially, is that there is not a such thing as a soul. There is an ego, that is for sure... there is self-awareness and memory and thought... but these organizations get lost and broken down and cannibalized... just as they get built up.

@Thucydides

How does a tree not make a sound when it falls in the forest, regardless of whether someone is there or not? Sound is produced by vibrations. Vibrations definitely occur when a tree falls. You sound as if you must think sound is created in our heads when we see something occur. If we're not there to see the action, then no sound is created?

Also, what are these ideas of germs doing something crazy when no scientist is looking through the microscope or stars being different colors when an astronomer is not viewing them through a telescope? That is pure lunacy.

Those statements show me that you need to see proof in order to believe in something. How can you believe in a God when you only have faith and no proof? That runs contrary to your normal logic. Just an observation based on your statements.

No proof exists for anything. You claim sound is produced by vibrations and I imagine you claim you have proof. You have no proof, only your perceptions. You, in actuality, merely *believe* that sound is produced by vibrations. You don't know.

The reason I think it makes no sound if no one is around is that I don't think it exists until someone sees it, and it stops existing when no one is there. Everything is based on perception. If something is not percieved, then it does not exist. As a concept it does, but nothing more.

As a sidenote: Even if it IS percieved... it still may not exist.

And to be honest I don't really... believe in God too hardcore.

A friend of mine explained his religious beliefs to me thus:
At crisis point in his life he found himself questioning his faith; so he prayed to god: "God prove to me you do not exist". Since God did nothing to disprove his own existence, my friend concluded that God must therefore exist.
I don't think this makes any sense but to my friend it was a profound moment.

you've got to be kidding.

So you're a solipist hey Thucydides?
I have heard it said that the only certain truths are tautologies.
The notion of whether or not anything can be "proved" depends on what you mean by "proof".
Personally I think that if everything speaks for a proposition and nothing against it - we may call that true. (I think that Wittgenstein might have said that,)

@ spyman:

I have a standing offer to God to prove Its existence to me if It wishes me to believe. So far, It hasn't taken me up on the offer. But I'm in no hurry, and maybe neither is God.

> If a tree falls in a forest ... ?

You can also see this as a question about the meaning of the word ‘sound’. Back in the day, people didn't know that sound was physically mediated by vibrations. (Anybody can tell that loud, low sounds CAUSE vibrations, but where are the vibrations in a high-pitched whine?) So ‘sound’ (and related words in other languages) meant the *perception* of sound by people (or whomever).

Then we learn the physical substrate for sound: vibrations in the air (or other medium). So if a tree falls in a forest (assuming that there really is a tree that falls), then it will make vibrations regardless of whether anyone is around to hear them. Did it make a sound?

Well, that depends on what ‘sound’ means. If it still means the perception of sound by people, then it did not. If we change the meaning of ‘sound’ to refer the vibrations that we now know about, then it did. So if you want to know how to use the word, one thing that you can do is to ask yourself this question.

Personally, I would use ‘sound’ to mean the perception of sound and ‘sound wave’ for a (potentially) audible vibration. That way, I can converse intelligently about ‘sound’ with somebody who doesn't know about sound waves. But you can make an argument the other way too.

All of this is assuming that the tree is really there, really interacting with a physical environment. So this doesn't answer George Berkeley's original question ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?’; Thucydides is taking Berkeley's position here. (But we may find that we're just arguing about the meaning a word like ‘really’ in the end.)

@Dex:

We agree to disagree then, but we now know the root of our disagreement. I believe we are both have learned something from this discussion.

Let me ask a question to get a final grasp on what you are saying though.

You believe that there are two types of "events", those that can be explained through a series of cause/consequence relations (*) and those who can not. Those events that can not be explained through cause/consequence, yet exist anyway, are inevitable/necesary.

Did I get that right?

(*) Even if they involve some probability, IE, your existance is "probable" because your mother met your father, but the fact that they had intercourse and you specifically (gene-wise) were born was a chance between many. So the possibility of your birth is explained by cause/consequence, but the actual happening of your birth is explained by chance.

So the tree falls, but no one is there to hear it. Yet, someone had the foresite to setup a camcorder and record the event. Now did it make a sound?

Based on the logic of it doesn't exist unless someone is looking at it/perceiving it, then nobody exists until I see them and they cease to exist when I no longer perceive them. At least based on the existence depends on perception logic. Of course, that is the way a baby or a little puppy thinks, but most of us outgrow the self-centered universe and accept that others exist whether we like it or not.

Of course, this is hardly a unique or original thought. The idea that only one person (yourself) exists and that you are actually God and this world just an amusement you made up for yourself has been around for a long time. And I can't swear it isn't true. The problem is, the only way it works is if I'm God and your are the fiction I've made up. If you actually exist then you would believe that YOU would be God and I the fiction.

@Xapi - sort of... I think. I'm not sure how probability blends into the question, actually. But as far as caused and uncaused events, I guess that is right. The first creation - whether it be of God or of the Universe (if there is no God) would be the uncaused event... in the usual sense of the word. The universe started with energy and mass... it didn't start from zero (can't get something from nothing). A void with no energy or mass would be zero... a blank canvas, so to speak. Since the universe has mass and energy it was either: 1) put there miraculously by a god... input into the system from the outside, or 2) started that way and must have been necessary by the very nature of universes and nature. But then if it was number 1 then the same question rolls down to god... To answer number 1 does not avoid answering number 2 at some point in the regression. At some point there is an uncaused cause (something that is exists by it's very nature - not something that had to be put in that state but simply naturally occurs in that state - an identity). To answer #2 right off the bat (regarding the known universe) is a simpler model than answering #1 for one or more times before getting to #2.

I don't imagine that there are any purely inevitable/necessary events within the universe (ones that don't have a cause outside to themselves)... I would only apply that to the universe as a whole (being that there is nothing outside the universe, presumably).

Just because the perception is reality model that Thucydides promotes can't be disproven, that doesn't mean that it's useful... or likely.

Well, Saint Thomas Aquinas (amongst others) used a similar argument than yours to "prove" the existance of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Basically, Saint Thomas Aquinas amongst others proposed that each event is caused by another event. Since this cause/effect chain can not be infinite, there must be an Uncaused Cause. This uncaused cause they assumed to be God.

In a more elaborate variation of this, we have the next set of arguments:

1 - The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.

2 - The Cosmos as a whole exists.

3 - The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).

4 - If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.

I take it that in this line of reasoning, you'd dispute the third premise, by proposing that the Cosmos is not contingent but infinite in time towards the past, and necesary in the sense you've explained before.

I myself in fact, do not agree with the wording in the third point, in that once the Universe is created, it needs probably nothing but it's internal laws to sustain itself.

It must however, have been created by something in the past.

@Xapi - I must say that I've been enjoying our conversation. Thanks for posting the last from Aquinas. Very interesting how a difference in one assumption can lead to entirely different views (yours, mine and Aquinas'). I don't imagine that we'll know the answer to this in any definitive way anytime soon.

As far as your last statement about having to have been created by something in the past... Yes, that is the general thought that people have on the subject... I would suggest that we are biased in such thoughts because we are used to things having beginnings and endings. Indeed all things within the universe presumably both have beginnings and endings... (though the matter and energy that these things are built from persists both before and after).

...the key word being "within". All changes *within* the universe are simply that - changes... there is no actual creation from nothing and no destruction to nothing. To our perception people and planets have beginnings and endings (so why not the cosmos?) but that is because of how we view these things...Nothing has a true beginning or end - it simply changes form. Currently there is no evidence that the universe itself had a beginning before which it did not exist in any form (though I'm not sure what form that evidence would take, admittedly).

Well, actually, when I re-read that, the part "in the past" is kinda out of place.

To explain myself on the matter of time (and space) correctly, I'd have to write a very long post wich I don't have time for now, and wouldn't be appropiate in this thread.

Perhaps on Monday I'll write something up (or translate an earlier writing I think I have somewhere) and post it for discussion.

"So you're a solipist hey Thucydides?"

Well... no, I just don't discount those ideas as readily as others. I take from solipsism the skepticism of all "facts" dressed up as "knowledge" knowing that there are two sides to everything and no one knows what they think they know, and may be wrong.


"Of course, this is hardly a unique or original thought. The idea that only one person (yourself) exists and that you are actually God and this world just an amusement you made up for yourself has been around for a long time. And I can't swear it isn't true. The problem is, the only way it works is if I'm God and your are the fiction I've made up. If you actually exist then you would believe that YOU would be God and I the fiction."

You assume I am a strict solipsist, which is not true. I allow that you MAY in fact exist. I do not presume to know though. Even still, it is possible that you don't. You might be nothing more than text that I read. Or you could be a full being. Only you can know. Maybe I am talking to a wall here, but maybe not.

"Just because the perception is reality model that Thucydides promotes can't be disproven, that doesn't mean that it's useful... or likely. "

I disagree. It is in fact useful, and it is no more likely than any other belief system.

The reason it is useful is because it leads me to the belief that every belief system is equally valid because it has an equal chance of being true in the sense that we have nothing to go on and know nothing about anything, therefore the most outrageous-sounding beliefs may well be reality.

Back to the tree in a forest question...

@ Toby - You still seem unwilling to part with the idea that sound is INVARIABLY caused by vibrations, and all the other physical properties of sound. You must accept that the ideas may be flawed, and may be not even based in any truth at all. You're right, there is an assumption that the tree even exists (it may not), but you assume even more. You assume that the sound waves will be produced. They may not be. You can't know. They may not be produced EVERY time, and somtimes maybe not at all.

About the camcorder.... I would say that if you watch the video and see the tree fall and hear it on your speakers... that this is all you have seen and heard, you screen and speakers, and that the tree may or may not exist and may or may not resemble the tape you have. If you have a tape. Or speakers, if those exist.

I think you all understand my argument but just don't think it has any shred of possibility. I understand... psychologically it can be hard to allow for such ridiculous possibilities, and I am still getting there myself. To whoever pointed out that it is a childish perspective to assume that only the things you percieve are what exist, well, perhaps as a children we are onto the truth, but the illusion that is reality eventually convinces us away from our inborn intuition. Just a thought, though.

I'm not solipsist, but solipsism isn't useless. And neither is what I believe or anyone else.

@ Thucydides:

>You still seem unwilling to part with the idea that sound is INVARIABLY caused by vibrations, and all the other physical properties of sound.

Well, what I really wanted to do was to assume physics as usual and show that there was still a question there. But you're right, merely assuming that the tree exists (which was Berekeley's original question) is not strictly enough to conclude that the vibrations occur. You also have to assume that our understanding of physics applies to that existing falling tree.

@Xapi

<sigh> Let's try this one more time. I don't care that you don't agree with me...but clearly, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

"The fact that you (or anyone) believes there's only one God means that there can't be more than one? That's not a logical fallacie, it's plain stupidity."

I assume you've read my original post. If not, take the time to read it again please.

I've proposed that there cannot be a god that makes himself known to the minds of men since there is no agreement as to who/what/ god is or how many gods there are. At the most basic level, ostensibly god cannot be the Christian god AND Allah at the same time UNLESS you assume that god speaks differently to different people. Right?

So if that is the case, then your proposal that there is more than one god plays perfectly into my argument. As zuzak correctly summed up: "if you assume that God says different things to different people, then all of the beliefs held, which were told by God to the people, must be equally valid, and since they contradict each other, God cannot have said them, and therefore, they must be incorrect."

So point #1 of yours is wrong.

So is point #2 since it's equivalent to the assumption that "god speaks differently to different people"

Point #3 takes us on a regressive journey and proposes that god can create the universe and man himself, but simply cannot get his message across. Suggesting he can create man, but not create a clear message is ridiculous. Why not create man with whatever message he wants?

Point #4 is just a rehash of points 1 and 2 except that it makes the same leap that my original argument disproves. That god communicates to man.

And finally, point #5 just means that god is just a mythical beast existing only in the minds of men...just like a unicorn.

I don't think I can get any clearer than that, Xapi.

Disagree with me all you want. I have no problem with that. But grasp what I'm saying first.

I only read part of the rest of the posts from after your reply to my last one...but Dexter's post citing points 1-7 assuming A-D is very good.

Anyway, I'd really like to know how I "adressed them like a five year old."?

Also, I cannot assume you aren't a native english speaker. Your english is actually very good for being a second language. But it's not my problem. If you expect to debate in english, be prepared to be scrutinized in english.

me: "Just because the perception is reality model that Thucydides promotes can't be disproven, that doesn't mean that it's useful... or likely. "

Thucy:"I disagree. It is in fact useful, and it is no more likely than any other belief system.

The reason it is useful is because it leads me to the belief that every belief system is equally valid because it has an equal chance of being true in the sense that we have nothing to go on and know nothing about anything, therefore the most outrageous-sounding beliefs may well be reality."
--
I'd like to see if you actually apply this view (or, more properly, lack of view) to your everyday life. When driving do you doubt that the green light in front of you is possibly accompanied by green lights in every other direction rather than the usual red?... Does this cause you to slow down severely looking both ways through a green light? Do you hold your breath in fear that the next breath could fill your lungs with water/pea soup/vacuum or whatever the supposedly random universe might place there? Do you actually test your theory that all views are equal and your senses can be fooled and/or that the universe might not follow any discernible pattern? I think not. If you do not act like your equivalence theory is true, then you don't actually believe that it is true. You have a working theory of the universe and it serves you well... even if you deny officially that you subscribe to it... you never the less do, in action, subscribe to it. The view that the world is rational is of more value... it is what allows you to keep alive.

Useful is what keeps you alive... and likely is all about probability. And you can't really claim that all views have an equal likelihood... that is obviously (by your existence) not how you or anyone else operates. There may possibly be a one chance in a googol that the air in your lungs turns into pea soup a second from now... but it is hardly a view that is useful for running a life, nor is it in any way shape or form equally likely to there being air in your lungs a second from now. So - you may abstractly argue the point... but I submit that your actions give away your true feelings about reality... that reality IS something real that can be anticipated, analyzed, and planned for.

Well, this last post of yours is a bit more understandable, so I'll take 5 minutes to answer it briefly. I think this discussion has probably gone too far already.

I have read your original post many times over, and I have adressed it with my opinion on the number of ways that so-called proof can be circumvented.

The clarifications that you have made seem to add many assumptions to the original idea, wich I believe should not be taken. Most of these assumptions rely on the properties of human kind.

Humans are known to lie, and also they fool themselves. The fact that you claim that your rock is your God and speaks to you doesn't make it true, of course. But the fact that you made stuff up (willingly or not) and called it God, doesn't mean that ANYONE who claims to have received word from God is either lying or delusional. It just means that you are. This is what I mean by #4, and frankly, it is not at all "a rehash of #1 & #2".

This means that I don't need to believe that Islamic beliefs are true to believe that Buddist beliefs are true, for example. They may both be true in a way too, or convenient for a given time and place.

Also, humans are known to exagerate. Word of mouth will make the story of a guy who swimmed really fast into the story of a guy who walked on water in some hundred years. Again, this is an example, I'm not arguing for or against a particular religion.

One more thing, many humans are not really very bright, and many humans subconciously manipulate their own knowledge to fit better with what they have already learned, or their prejudice. So, in point #3, don't take it as "God can't get his message across", but take it as "people will always add something to a message they receive". It's human nature.

About God now, I've said this before too, he may have reasons to give a determined instruction to a group of people and another, maybe even contradictory, to another group. "God works in mysterious ways" may sound corny to you, but it may be true.

Another assumption you've made, is that he's a benevolent and transparent God. God may not be as nice as he's made out be. He may lie to make us fight each other on Holy Wars for his own amusement. He may lie to get us to do something because it's important for him as an experiment. He may lie to do us good too, it is clear that if God exists, he'd be smarter than all of us put toghether, and many times a person who knows more lies to one that knows less to keep them from pain.

About point #1, please, try to get what I'm saying into your head. There are many Gods. Each of them has their particular set of rules. They struggle for the belief of men. So, when they contact men, they use phrases such as "I am the One True God", "You shall not praise another god", and such. So, some people consider their own God "the only God", and claim that the rest of them don't exist. This is a clear way for people to disagree in the number of Gods there are. I believe it can't be disregarded by your earlier commments.

"And finally, point #5 just means that god is just a mythical beast existing only in the minds of men...just like a unicorn."

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

There are a number of philosophycal and moral implications to the existance of a God, even if he doesn't intervene in the world directly. But the point I'm making is that you have not disproven the existance of a God, and #5 is an absolutely irrefutable way for a creator to exist and people believing absolutely anything they feel like, religion-wise.

Think of him as a scientist. He got the equipment, set the conditions of the experiment... and now he's watching the thing unfold. He won't touch anything, because it would mess his results. But he exists nonetheless.

"Also, I cannot assume you aren't a native english speaker. Your english is actually very good for being a second language. But it's not my problem. If you expect to debate in english, be prepared to be scrutinized in english."

It was a clarification. I don't mind you scrutinizing my english... although you should try to put more effort in evaluating correctly my ideas.

Look, you may not believe in a God, which i can respect since i also have questioned my faith. But i always go back to thinking how can the universe be here? You can try to prove that it doesn't exist, but then i want to here your theroy. The big bang theroy obviously has more holes in it than a sponge, and i still can't bring myself to believe that matter has just been here forever. And now i ask you Sicarious, read the Bible. Be on the right side of the fence when the day comes.