By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

dsgrue3 on 18 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

Again, you seem to think observation implies sight. It doesn't. We can't see gravity, but we know it to exist. We can't see certain gases because they are not visible. 

Observation implies evidence, it certainly isn't confined to merely sight.

Well, we know the atom to exist and it does in fact encompass everything. This has been proven beyond any doubt as we have verified its existence through calculation and scientific study. The same cannot be said for your argument of God.

It's an untestable hypothesis and thus is not valid. This is why non-existence is impossible to prove. So asking a non-theist to do so is blatantly ignorant. 

I am not (yet) looking to invalidate the existence of God. At this point of the dialogue, I just want to demonstrate that the lack of observation does not disprove existence. For instance, prior to the existence of sentient, observing beings, everything that needed to exist to generate living beings was existent. The lack of observation didn't stop sentient creatures from coming into being.

(Note: This logic does not work for a creation deist since in general a creative deity is all-knowing. However in such a case the belief that observation alone proves existence wouldn't really be needed.)

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence). 



Around the Network
happydolphin on 18 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence). 

My question is, did they exist prior to us observing them as a 3rd party intelligent being.

At the moment the were at play into creating sentient beings, did they exist (at that time when we were not existent)?

This is not pedantism, it's a quest for truth.



dsgrue3 on 18 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence). 

My question is, did they exist prior to us observing them as a 3rd party intelligent being.

At the moment the were at play into creating sentient beings, did they exist (at that time when we were not existent)?

This is not pedantism, it's a quest for truth.

It's pedantism. No doubt about it. I said if a third party source were observing the Universe prior to humans, it would confirm the existence of the atom. 

You can't simply say before life nothing existed. Of course it existed, but there weren't any intelligent beings around to confirm its existence. Nothing to ponder that simple fact. This is a definition for existence which is widely accepted, but it does present a mirror effect. A observes B confirming B's existence, but who confirmed A's existence?

You're making a very strange argument trying to refute a defintion, which is laughably obsolete. Is there a point to be made here, because I'd rather not waste time debating the validity of a defintion which is accepted by the entire physics community. 



happydolphin on 18 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

It's pedantism. No doubt about it. I said if a third party source were observing the Universe prior to humans, it would confirm the existence of the atom. 

You can't simply say before life nothing existed. Of course it existed, but there weren't any intelligent beings around to confirm its existence. Nothing to ponder that simple fact. This is a definition for existence which is widely accepted, but it does present a mirror effect. A observes B confirming B's existence, but who confirmed A's existence?

You're making a very strange argument trying to refute a defintion, which is laughably obsolete. Is there a point to be made here, because I'd rather not waste time debating the validity of a defintion which is accepted by the entire physics community. 

The first thing I don't do when defending my points is influencing my reader by using the backing of a scientific community. I argue my points and I let my interlocutor decide for himself. As such I consider that quite disingenuous, but I'll let it slide, let's get back to the topic.

 

The point I was not making was this:

A observes B does not confirm B's existence.

That is the point I was not making.

 

The point I was making was:

A does not observe B does not invalidate B's existence.

 

Do you see the difference? If you do, do you now realize that you were mistaken about my intent and for considering my argument pedantic?



dsgrue3 on 18 December 2012
happydolphin said:
The first thing I don't do when defending my points is influencing my reader by using the backing of a scientific community. I argue my points and I let my interlocutor decide for himself. As such I consider that quite disingenuous, but I'll let it slide, let's get back to the topic.

 

The point I was not making was this:

A observes B does not confirm B's existence.

That is the point I was not making.

 

The point I was making was:

A does not observe B does not invalidate B's existence.

 

Do you see the difference? If you do, do you now realize that you were mistaken about my intent and for considering my argument pedantic?

So you argue based upon your own suppositions as opposed to utilizing the scientific community? Haha, that explains a lot.

Then you were aguing an untestable hypothesis. These are not valid and are completely pointless. So, you did not have a point. As I suspected.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 18 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

So you argue based upon your own suppositions as opposed to utilizing the scientific community? Haha, that explains a lot.

Then you were aguing an untestable hypothesis. These are not valid and are completely pointless. So, you did not have a point. As I suspected.

Are you here to debate, or are you here to compare my post to the scientific community? You have yet to actually debate my point, my question is still unanswered.

If A was not observed by anyone, since noone could observe A at a moment where no sentient beings existed, did A exist?

It's a very, simple, question.

And this interaction I'm having with dsgrue3, I believe, answers OP.



dsgrue3 on 18 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

So you argue based upon your own suppositions as opposed to utilizing the scientific community? Haha, that explains a lot.

Then you were aguing an untestable hypothesis. These are not valid and are completely pointless. So, you did not have a point. As I suspected.

Are you here to debate, or are you here to compare my post to the scientific community? You have yet to actually debate my point, my question is still unanswered.

If A was not observed by anyone, since noone could observe A at a moment where no sentient beings existed, did A exist?

It's a very, simple, question.

And this interaction I'm having with dsgrue3, I believe, answers OP.

If nothing observed A, A did not exist. This is by definition which we have been debating. Satisfied?



happydolphin on 18 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

If nothing observed A, A did not exist. This is by definition which we have been debating. Satisfied?

Much better. If A (matter) did not exist, and A gives birth to B (sentient beings, via evolution), how did B exist as we observe it today?

 

Truth is:

At that moment where A had not yet been observed, the truth is that it still existed, for without A's existence B could not have come into being. Which invalidates the converse of the definition you offered.

The definition is fine, no problem with it. It's the converse that isn't (e.g. that if we haven't observed something then it doesn't exist).



dsgrue3 on 18 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

If nothing observed A, A did not exist. This is by definition which we have been debating. Satisfied?

Much better. If A (matter) did not exist, and A gives birth to B (sentient beings, via evolution), how did B exist as we observe it today?

 

Truth is:

At that moment where A had not yet been observed, the truth is that it still existed, for without A's existence B could not have come into being. Which invalidates the converse of the definition you offered.

The definition is fine, no problem with it. It's the converse that isn't (e.g. that if we haven't observed something then it doesn't exist).


You're using a different definition to suit your argument. I've stayed with mine this entire time. You can't debate two separate definitions for existence then use them interchangeably. That's ludicrous. 

By definition, it did not exist. Existence did not exist prior to defining existence. This is a philosophical matter more so than a scientific one since we are using a particular definition here.



EdHieron on 18 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

If nothing observed A, A did not exist. This is by definition which we have been debating. Satisfied?

Much better. If A (matter) did not exist, and A gives birth to B (sentient beings, via evolution), how did B exist as we observe it today?

 

Truth is:

At that moment where A had not yet been observed, the truth is that it still existed, for without A's existence B could not have come into being. Which invalidates the converse of the definition you offered.

The definition is fine, no problem with it. It's the converse that isn't (e.g. that if we haven't observed something then it doesn't exist).


Of course one would have to determine how A came into existence too.  And why there were other As popularly considered to be A before the A that is popularly considered to be A today came into existence and why it can be documented that today's A seems to be based on earlier As.