09 Mar 07
1 edit
There is interesting "scientific" research progressing currently on the question. . . "We have feelings of spirituality, why do we have them?"
I will say for clarity, these studies in no way relate to or ask the question "Does god exist?".
On the subject of the first question, neurological study and direct observation of human neural networks, is leading to an understanding of mind processes that will be equally revolutionary to the public view of religion, as Copernicus showing us finally (he was not the first to understand) the earth is not the centre of the universe. To be explicit it will only be a short period of time until knowledge is available to the public on mass allowing for an understanding why humans have a feeling of spirituality. For some it will be unacceptable, for others a welcome level of increased understanding of our human skull incased condition.
Mainstream acceptance takes a life time and beyond, as Darwin and Copernicus new well.
Unfortunately society and its accepted understanding of well anything is still influenced and biased by 2000 years of history. Hopefully the time lag will shorten as society progresses through this century. I am not optimistic. . .
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt is not impossible to prove a negative, I phrased myself incorrectly. For example, from stats:
Why? Your argument is now* of the form:
One cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
Hence, one cannot prove any negative at all.
To think that this argument is valid, one would be equally inclined to think that no people from New Zealand are intelligent after encountering one unintelligent person from New Zealand.
Do you maint ...[text shortened]... t God doesn't exist.
[/quote]
That's a valid one, but unfortunately it has a false premise.
A = 0.4
B = 0.4
A and B = 0.2
It can be proved that A and B are not independent as A x B != A and B.
However, non-existance cannot be proven. You cannot prove that God does not exist as the argument can always be made that the techniques used do not enable to discern God or that you didn't bother to look under that rock over there.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou CAN prove certain negative existential claims, either based on observation (no eye between my left eye and my right eye) or on purely a priori grounds (no being that is both omnipotent and not omnipotent).
It is not impossible to prove a negative, I phrased myself incorrectly. For example, from stats:
A = 0.4
B = 0.4
A and B = 0.2
It can be proved that A and B are not independent as A x B != A and B.
However, non-existance cannot be proven. You cannot prove that God does not exist as the argument can always be made that the techniques used do not enable to discern God or that you didn't bother to look under that rock over there.
Whether you can prove God, specifically, doesn't exist is another matter.
09 Mar 07
7 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou are simply mistaken. Non-existence most certainly can be proven.
However, non-existance cannot be proven.
What's worse is that you keep resorting to fallacious reasoning as if you believe it is sound. In particular, you are basing your argument on generalizing an attribute of a member of a class (the impossibility of a proof of a claim of God's nonexistence) to an attribute of every member of the class (the impossibility of a proof of any claim of nonexistence). You keep telling me that I can't prove God doesn't exist, and I keep telling you that that is irrelevant to your claim, and you keep ignoring it.
So, you have two major errors in thinking that I recommend you rectify. It is only by serendipity that they are exhibiting themselves simultaneously here, as they are both elementary and not inherently related.
09 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellSo what if a specify myself further;
You CAN prove certain negative existential claims, either based on observation (no eye between my left eye and my right eye) or on purely a priori grounds (no being that is both omnipotent and not omnipotent).
Whether you can prove God, specifically, doesn't exist is another matter.
You cannot prove non-existance except in a localized manner (i.e. you can prove you do not have an eye between your two eyes but not that someone somewhere doesn't have a third eye).
EDIT: It should be noted that I am not a logic or proof guru. I'm making this up as I go along.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhy bother? I am such a guru, and I am telling you before God and my fellow man that you are mistaken.
It should be noted that I am not a logic or proof guru. I'm making this up as I go along.
It is certainly possible to prove the denial of existential claims, even those that have no "localization" constraints.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell, that's a different kind of negative existential proposition.
So what if a specify myself further;
You cannot prove non-existance except in a localized manner (i.e. you can prove you do not have an eye between your two eyes but not that someone somewhere doesn't have a third eye).
EDIT: It should be noted that I am not a logic or proof guru. I'm making this up as I go along.
But if someone were to refuse to accept that a proposition like "There are no human beings with 60,000 eyes" could in principle be disproved... I'd wonder what on earth they meant by "proof".
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by dottewellThat would depend on whether you were assuming human beings lived only on Earth or not.
Well, that's a different kind of negative existential proposition.
But if someone were to refuse to accept that a proposition like "There are no human beings with 60,000 eyes" could in principle be disproved... I'd wonder what on earth they meant by "proof".
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomSome peoples minds are a little too open.
people who do not have open minds are stupid
Should we be open minded enough to include fairies, unicorns, dragons, the flying spaghetti monster, the aboriginal dreamtime, Thor and Valhalla, flat earth, Shinto religious beliefs, Buddhism, or should we be only open minded enough to consider your set of beliefs?
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell yes; negative existential propositions of the form:
That would depend on whether you were assuming human beings lived only on Earth or not.
No X's exist anywhere in the universe
...will be, de facto, difficult to prove if they don't include a logical contradiction. I'll grant you that.
09 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellBut if we restrict our attention to contingent propositions, then it will be equally difficult to prove non-negated existential claims. After all, you could always be mistaken that that is an X (although you could advocate some logical positivistic phenomenalism, and just stipulate that a concept applies correctly given the occurence of certain phenomenal states in the perceiver, but even this presupposes perfect access to the contents of one's conscious states...). The question here isn't really about types of claims, but about the putative criterion of certainty.
Well yes; negative existential propositions of the form:
No X's exist anywhere in the universe
...will be, de facto, difficult to prove if they don't include a logical contradiction. I'll grant you that.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannionAssuming there is spirit, or a spirit, can science measure or detect it in any way?
I'm not a scientist either, but I am a science teacher, so I claim some very basic background in a few areas. But other than that, I'm a person with an interest in science and I keep myself fairly well read.
About God science knows nothing.
About belief in gods and possible explanations for those beliefs there are a number of scientific works and popul ...[text shortened]... ce NOT to do this, and will use their own explanatory systems (eg. religious belief) instead.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by josephwBy 'spiritual', do you mean 'relating to the spirit' or do you mean 'normative'? Science surely does address questions of the former sort, by showing that positing the existence of a soul is explanatorily unnecessary. Science doesn't directly address the latter sort of question, though it may be able to show that there are psychological limitations on what we, as humans, can take to be valuable (and thus limitations on what an ethical theory may legitimately require of us), as well as showing that certain sorts of lives tend to make us happier, that certain sorts of character traits are either constitutive or instrumental to living those sorts of lives, etc.
That sounds like a rhetorical question.
But no, I can't think of any spiritual matter that science even addresses.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by josephwIf you refer to some sort of supernatural entity, then no, science can't measure or detect that. But here's where we get back to our previous discussion about what would constitute a spirit or soul.
Assuming there is spirit, or a spirit, can science measure or detect it in any way?
I would argue that what you call a spirit or soul is simply your own mind using that notion as an explanation for some things. Can science examine this? Sure.
But you would probably argue that what you call a spirit or soul is an actual thing. Can science examine this? No.