Certainty is a psychological state and not necessarily based on facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosa
Printable View
Certainty is a psychological state and not necessarily based on facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosa
Hi Lote Tree
Ya,I suppose you are right considering that certainty in way or the other in this case is extremely difficult to achieve as we are talking of immaterial things,not tangible.
How do you achieve certainty of something you cannot see or touch ?
You can try and give explanations one way or the other to bring light to the darkness of doubts,,still if there is no proof you can only reason and try to make sense of things.
I prefere this approach
You can as long as it can be measured. Atoms for example can't be seen or the forces can't be touched but both can be measured. And that makes the whole difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosa
Best approach is the Scientific Method which is based on objectively verifiable evidence.
hi
It is one method if you prefere that one.Having said that even within the Scientific Method you have to choose between the qualitative and quantitative approach. My impression is that in this specific case as for task is concerned a qualitative method would be desirable as it would be difficult to quantify people ideas.Which brings us back to what we are doing more or less.In a humble way.
On the one hand the Scientific Approach is sensible because removes all the baggage that we tend to drug along wirth us and has little to do with reaching sensible proven conclusion.
On the other hand though without that useless buggage we only look at the mechanic of things without taking into consideration factors that might in reality have a great impact on risults.
I am not a great scientist I must say.I am a classicist with a hint of science developed late in life.so my scientific approach to things is not reliable I am afraid.
Rosa...
I was a bit taken aback at your message...in all reality, I believe I'm very flexible. I think all traditions have their way of looking at God, and not only do I respect them, but I believe in them. I include many traditions in my life...singing bowls and Gongs from Tibet, a beautiful little broom outside my front door to sweep off my porch, beautiful pieces of Jade to continue the positive energy and lovely Feng Shui in my home, I have books on Zen, on Taoism, on Catholocisim, I have a sourcebook of the world's religions (which I have yet to really intake, but will.) I think all people should be aware of and respect the traditions of others...but the true Faith, the Faith of all Faiths, is that of Love. And love does respect others traditions (or their choice to not have one, which I also think is lovely. It is a tradition that respects their own being and right to their Free Choice and personal path.) I do hope you understand that my view of God includes every one of these traditions I've just mentioned. I'm sorry it looks as if I offended you, I am pretty open-minded, and love to hear about other people's views, always. As I said, my first and foremost thought is Love. And that, in true essense, is the True Beauty that matters Universally in all of us. Love Loves, Love Fights, Love Wins. Always. (A Quote from me!) I would love for you to post to my site, Un Philosophia Des Anges with your view on God or Spirituality...take a look if you have a chance...http://philosophiadesanges.blogspot.com/. We are all Angels, in all traditions, because we love.--Rebecca Tacosa Gray
Hi Anonymous Angel
You did not offend me at all.I was comparing two different approaches yours and Poetic Passion.One who does not believe in God and the other that does.You both seem to be certain of your position.
Read again my post and you will see that I just said that I do not share your point of view or PoeticPassion. I do not think certainty in this subject is something achievable. I did not say even that you were not opennminded.I would I know? I am only saying that I prefere a more flexible position where things are expressed in a way that allow a dialog and seen the topic,try and achieve the conclusion through reasoning and discussing rather than expressing a state of mind.
That mathematics can be translatable (sometimes) to the sensible world is not a measure of its validity, and tells us nothing about the nature of an axiom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Also, you are mistaken when you define an axiom as being something that is "self-evident." While many axioms are self-evident, that is not what makes an axiom an axiom. An axiom is something that is accepted without proof, not something that does not require proof.
Further, "x = x" may not be as self-evident as you may think. Consider the following: Place some water in a container and seal the container. Freeze the water into ice. Melt it within the container. Then refreeze it in the same closed container. Are the two ice cubes the same?
Once again, what exactly is meant by the term "self-evident"? And how exactly do you propose to divorce what is self-evident from what is "merely" an act of faith?
It is interesting to consider your comments to me about self-evidence in conjunction to your remarks to Rosa in the same post, also quoted above. In one case you appear to take as a universal something that you believe, while in another you critique someone for doing quite the same thing. The only difference appears to be what is taken as self-evident.
Ironic, no?
Hi
Interesting!
What is really self evidence?
Do you think is different for every one of us?
It is. isn't it? Of course if there are tangible proves may be we all see things the same way helped by these proves.mmh.Not sure really.
May be self evidence is not real either. I suppose we all see things slightly differently even analysing same evidence.
I already said I am not good at all in entering the scientific field,I do not have the knowledge or the approach for it.
What would anyway classify as self evident if not really tangible things,Even there who knows. Because if they were really self evident we all would be able to see them in the same way.Even in scientific field. I suppose you need to have the right knowledge and approach to identify something as "self evident" whatever is the field you are dealing with.But if we look at religion which I believe and hope to be right is not tangible,what is it really self evidence.
Sorry to be messy in this reasoning but do we all see religion as non tangible?
because if we have some difference of opinion there from the beginning is hardly going to be possible to follow the same line of reasoning and impossible to rich the same conclusion.May be similar.Somebody out there help me to reason on this one,please.Are we here merely listing our opinions?
How far do we have to explain the backgound of our reasoning to be understood exactly in the way we mean things.Is that at all possible?
An axiom is by definition self-evident. If it's not self-evident, it's not an axiom. Your problematic would then turn to be "what is an axiom".Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Your example might lead to think that your last sentence "Are the two ice cubes the same?" mean "does x = x?", but it does not, unless you explicitly imply that, for the sake of your reasoning, the two ice cubes are indeed the same. If you imply that they are not the same, then asking does "does x = x?" does not apply. x can only mean a single variable. Your reasoning is sophistic and implies that x would mean two different things.Quote:
Further, "x = x" may not be as self-evident as you may think. Consider the following: Place some water in a container and seal the container. Freeze the water into ice. Melt it within the container. Then refreeze it in the same closed container. Are the two ice cubes the same?
It is pointless to discuss about this when the point above has non been elucidated, this is: the meaning of x = x. The statement x = x is a mathematical statement, and this means that you cannot apply it as you did. Your example, if you imply that the two ice cubes are not the same, is only based on your definition of what the ice cube "is". So if you say that the two ice cubes are not the same, then you would only be saying x =/= y, and wouldn't be saying that x =/= x.Quote:
Once again, what exactly is meant by the term "self-evident"? And how exactly do you propose to divorce what is self-evident from what is "merely" an act of faith?
Hmm explain it better, as, as it is, or as I understand it, I find this nonsequitur...Quote:
It is interesting to consider your comments to me about self-evidence in conjunction to your remarks to Rosa in the same post, also quoted above. In one case you appear to take as a universal something that you believe, while in another you critique someone for doing quite the same thing. The only difference appears to be what is taken as self-evident.
Ironic, no?
If there is no God, then everything else is permitted.
The problem still revolves around what makes an axiom an axiom. The salient feature is that an axiom is a postulate that is taken to be true without proof. It is NOT something derived from empirical observation (there has never been, and never could be, an observation of a mathematical point, line, or plane) and it relies for its acceptance on something vague such as "self-evidence" which by the very term itself implies a degree of subjectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Once you argue that one has to take into account the circumstances there is no longer the pure self-evidence that you imply. Your argument (and your argument is correct) is that a statement such as "x = x" can be accepted without proof only within certain types of arguments. Which is precisely my position on axioms. These are not merely self-evident statements, but are statements that are taken to be "worthy" (which is the original meaning of the word) of acceptance for the sake of particular types of arguments.
Now the point of all this is that your system of gaining knowledge involves basing certain types of thoughts on statements that are accepted not because they are universally true, and not because they are demonstrable (they are not) but because they allow us to move forward. They are a starting point. We are of course allowed to jettison axioms and postulates (same thing) when they are no longer useful. A classic example is the abandonment of the postulate that parallel lines never meet, since that is not necessarily true in some interesting cases.
Given your concessions here, the irony of rejecting someone else's set of axioms out of hand should be evident.
The true questions to ask are to what purpose we are choosing our axioms, and to what degree they allow us to pursue that purpose profitably. I would argue that religious axioms are, or can be, as valid for their purpose as mathematical ones, in their proper spheres.
No, no, to say "it can only be accepted in certain types of argument" is false, it can be accepted all the time. x = x is a mathematical axiom, the mathematical axiom will then only illustrate your reasoning applied to the ice cubes in a mathematical form. If your premise is that x = any ice cube, then necessarily all ice cubes are the same, at least for the sake of your argument, and therefore x = x will necessary be true for the sake of your argument. As soon as you are tempted to say x =/= x, then your statement becomes wrong, and it should be x =/= y, because one variable cannot mean two different things, x =/= x is a complete absurdity, like saying 1 =/= 1. So as soon as you postulate that the two ice cubes are NOT the same then x = any ice cube contradicts this very statement. I mean I don't know how I can explain this further...Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
This is following a very sophistic reasoning I'm afraid. Putting "x = x" and "God exist" on a same foot of logical equality is stretching it quite far...Quote:
Given your concessions here, the irony of rejecting someone else's set of axioms out of hand should be evident.
Axioms are universally true.Quote:
I would argue that religious axioms are, or can be, as valid for their purpose as mathematical ones, in their proper spheres.
It is quite useless to continue this until you have understood correctly why it is an axiom and why it is self-evident.
I wouldn't be surprised really. I'd move on to better things such as learning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
Let me second bazarov's apt paraphrase from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Once God - the source of objective morality - is banished, then we really have no reason to prohibit any behavior whatsoever except on basis of personal preference or "might makes right." How scary is that?
This would change nothing for me, and for many others I am sure. I do not believe in a conventional sense of God, but of a power greater then myself. More specifically: I have faith in life, in being good and kind towards others simply for the satisfaction of not causing others pain, and I enjoy my life for the pure sake of the gift that it is to be living. People who are saying that they would die if there were no God, well, I'm sure your God would be horrified to hear that. If you do believe in God then he surly did not create you to have you feel that your life is so trivial.
and more specifically, the "Power Greater then Myself" that I believe in is more a way of saying, that I only believe that I am not God, or more specifically that I am such an important person, as I have found some people to immediately assume this is my opinion of myself :lol: . The Ocean is a power greater then myself, so are Elephants and Hurricanes. If there was no heaven or hell, I don't know if there is or not, it would make no difference to me, nor should it to anyone. The absence of an "After" should not mean that there is nothing to look forward to. Who knows what comes "After"? Faith should be something that you feel in your heart, and how you talk to "God" or whatever power it is you believe is more powerful then yourself, well that should be a personal thing within each individual that is unbiased against any concrete knowledge of a presence of or absence of a Deity.
I'd also like to say, that I don't care what anyone practices. Honestly, and I don't mean this in a rude way. I think that religions are great things, I think everyone is right, and everyone is wrong all at the same time. If there is a "God" then there is only one. And my concept, and yours, and everyone else's on the planet are simply individual ways to find that same point. No one should tell anyone how to have faith or to worship whoever it is they feel the need to worship.
This is a terrifically touchy topic to many people though it seems.
And also, I would truly hate to believe that if there was no God then anything would be permissible. It is a shame to have such a low view of humans, though we surly haven't done very much to prove that point otherwise. There is no God for me, and "Anything" is certainly not permissible for me in my life. Morals, though they have a strong tie to religion and the concept of a "God" and the great fear of his wrath, do not solely rely on religion. There is such a thing as simply being a "Good" person.
But again, to each his own and I value every-ones difference of opinion, so long as respect is involved of course.