Jake_Ellison Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) it is just as likely that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them Define likely. (if you define it using the word "probability", define that too) Edited March 24, 2010 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance That's the definition of the word likely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) as language is only a tool to convey ideas, that is what I meant by likely in that specific context Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 the definition in this context, as language is only a tool to convey ideas, that is what I meant by likely in that specific context Ok, here's how your sentence looks if I replace likely with what you meant by likely: it is just as has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them If there's an idea you conveyed in there, I'm missing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself Since energy is not an entity but the effect of entities on other entities, what did this alleged being use to "shape" the rest of the entities out of? If the only existent is itself then you have a problem. Without a multiplicity of eternal bounded entities no non-contradictory view of the U is possible. I see no way around this. Singularities are irrational. Edited March 24, 2010 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 dang I did not catch that one I feel kind of bad now.. but still, does objectivism necessitate atheism, or does it only require a lack of faith (assuming that Deism lacks faith and Atheism does not require it) Being a philosophy, Objectivism tries to lay down some principles of how we should validate our knowledge. So, it is not simply "no faith", but a little more than that. According to these underlying principles, Objectivism rejects certain types of propositions as arbitrary and therefore not knowledge. Further, any time someone tries to get a little more specific about what God is all about, that will lead to contradictions, and Objectivism holds that contradictions do not exist. Objectivism uses its underlying epistemology while coming up with other propositions. So, if someone comes along and says, "I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusion, but I agree with your conclusion", that does not make him an Objectivist. Imagine some ancient medicine man who says: "There is an evil spirit living in your abscess", and lances it off. If this just so happens to also be the medically correct treatment, we would be wrong to call such a person's approach "perfectly compatible" with modern medicine. When we are comparing systems of knowledge, we should be comparing the systems, not just the leaf nodes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) Ok, here's how your sentence looks if I replace likely with what you meant by likely: it is just as has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them If there's an idea you conveyed in there, I'm missing it. the point is simply that Deism in all practical sense Atheism with a difference that makes no difference and is compatable with objectivism. Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Being a philosophy, Objectivism tries to lay down some principles of how we should validate our knowledge. So, it is not simply "no faith", but a little more than that. According to these underlying principles, Objectivism rejects certain types of propositions as arbitrary and therefore not knowledge. Further, any time someone tries to get a little more specific about what God is all about, that will lead to contradictions, and Objectivism holds that contradictions do not exist. Objectivism uses its underlying epistemology while coming up with other propositions. So, if someone comes along and says, "I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusion, but I agree with your conclusion", that does not make him an Objectivist. Imagine some ancient medicine man who says: "There is an evil spirit living in your abscess", and lances it off. If this just so happens to also be the medically correct treatment, we would be wrong to call such a person's approach "perfectly compatible" with modern medicine. When we are comparing systems of knowledge, we should be comparing the systems, not just the leaf nodes. a god's nature is determined empirically, which means that once a contradiction arises its nature is changed to fit the new evidence also, if one does not define god, there is never a contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 the point is simply that there is Deism in all practical sense Atheism with a difference that makes no difference and is compatable with objectivism. "the only difference between round and square is the color" This is equivilent to the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) "the only difference between round and square is the color" This is equivilent to the above. how so? prove this without simply stating it as truth. I am only talking about practicality, the only diffenece between a blue nail and a red nail for building a wall that will not be seen is irrelevant. provided that the nails are the same in all else Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 to quote some person I cannot remember, "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) my arguments, are honestly partly inspired by the Christians who denounced deists as atheists. Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 to quote some person I cannot remember, "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" Oh great, an equivocation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) no need to be nasty. Equivocation does not prove anything true, but do not commit the fallacy fallacy here is another metaphor: is tree that has been pissed a few months ago on any different to the carpenter than one that is identical but has not been pissed on? Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 What units do you measure God in - Joules? Ergs? Calories? 1.21 GIGAWATTS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 1.21 GIGAWATTS! I still stand by ohms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Great job. Best troll thread in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) So, jake... can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism? Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 So, jake... can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism? Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 I would love to hear (or rather read) it, I understand that I very well may be wrong and I actually want to be proven wrong as I am playing the "devil's advocate" in this thread padron he figure of speach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 So, jake... can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism? Can you provide a explanation of what Rands theory of definition is? If not you have your first reason why you couldn't even evaluate the title of your own thread properly. By the way I realize you where trying to say "an irrelevent difference" earlier, but due to a lack of correct epistemlogy you were having difficulty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 as a side note, Jake are you a ARI or COS objectivist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) yes, Rand said that a word is a way to describe a concept according to her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Edited March 24, 2010 by moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moot Posted March 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 the above is a paraphrasing of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.