Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Chacham's Journal: Verbiage: T/F, Objective/Subjective, Science/Religion (2) 5

1) Raymond blogs
2) References another entry
3) Comment references books.
4) Search Amazon for books/author
5) Find Irreligion
6) See comment touch upon First Cause
7) Think about it.

Point A to point B. Quite amazing sometimes.

Not all proofs are objective. Indeed, i'd say most are subjective, but there's no way to prove that to you. :) Objectivity, is the highest common denominator, allowing (forced) agreement. Subjectivity, though, is how most decide for themselves.

To me, First Cause is a proof. Here's the way i see it:

1) Every effect has a cause.
2) Every cause is an effect.
3) Problem: this is circular.
4) Answer: a) Time is circular. b) There is a supernatural prime cause not affected by rule 2.

So, it come down to a choice between time being circular and a supernatural prime cause.

Why do i choose choice b? because it fits with my world view.
Why do i not choose choice a? It's seems illogical.

So, the choice of b based on values. The negation of a is based on logic.

For the opposite approach:

Why choose choice a? because it's answer stays within the system, and relies completely on logic.
Why not choose choice b? The idea of a supernatural explanation is abhorrent.

So, the choice of a is based on logic. The negation of b is based on values.

That the choice of religion is F and science is T, is something i've posted on before.
That the negation of religion is also F, and the negation of science is also T is new to me. An interesting thought perhaps.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verbiage: T/F, Objective/Subjective, Science/Religion (2)

Comments Filter:
  • Had exactly this answer for the existence of God: Time is circular, eventually all human beings and other sentient races will merge into a virtual world, and the last question, the last problem to be solved by science- is how to reverse entropy.

    I like that- God without supernatural sources OR behavior. And in my mind, that *completely* fits in with my religion- Pope Benedict XVI said as much as Regansburg, for which the Islamics started killing nuns and priests when they didn't get the point.

  • ...from that guy's review (I couldn't locate a "toucvh" comment that you referred to) it sounds like a book of intellectual sucker punches taking advantage of idiots. On both sides.

    Like Mr. Mathematician (as if that necessarily means he has notable logic skills, and their application outside of numbers and math's domains!), I logically faulted on executing the very first step of that First Cause argument. As I would on every "logical" argument FOR the existence of God, since I don't believe He can be proved

    • by Chacham ( 981 )

      I fixed the typo, thanx for pointing it out. The link to the comment had an anchor, putting it on comments on the comments. Scrolling up shows the actual comment i referred to. Regardless, i have fixed the link.

      a natural prime cause not affected by rule 2.

      In my mind, not being affected by rule 2 makes it supernatural. The prior existence of a supernatural force does not prove a particular deity, or that it still exists. That is a separate argument.

      • In my mind, not being affected by rule 2 makes it supernatural.

        I.e. you choose to discard the atheist's possibility #3 because... you choose to.

        So where we might agree, then, is that the existence of a supernatural force cannot be proven (nor disproven) objectively, there's only what we find suits us.

        • by Chacham ( 981 )

          I.e. you choose to discard the atheist's possibility #3 because... you choose to.

          I am not rejecting this possibility. I am stating that it is supernatural. Because nature includes rules 1 and 2. Negate either, and it isn't natural. Put another way: we are in a box where rules 1 and 2 apply. If either do not apply to something, that something is (or comes from) outside the box.

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.