Which came first? - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

Isn't it just as arrogant to say that animals do not also have knowledge??

Other than this (and depending on exactly what is meant by "scientific method") I agree with your list.

Well, that's why I said I wasn't sure where to put knowledge, depending on the definition we're using. Under some definitions, animals do have knowledge.

Quote

09-14-2011 , 05:00 PM

#27

la6ki

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,675

Quote:

Originally Posted by skalf

God if he exists, otherwise disregard.
The universe, mind, knowledge, language, humans, scientist, scientific method.
Don’t be so arrogant as to assume only humans have knowledge or language.

By 'god' I meant the concept, not the actual being.

I already pointed out that animals could also have knowledge under some definitions of it. I am pretty sure there is a scientific consensus that animal communication is not considered language though.

Quote

09-14-2011 , 05:07 PM

#28

la6ki

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,675

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLK

I do not agree. First, you are postulating explanations for my observations but you do not know what my observations are in detail. So your explanations are postulated in ignorance (not meaning to be insulting). Thus they are suspect.

It is true that I don't know what your experiences actually are. But no matter what they are, do you have independent evidence that they are not illusory?

Quote:

Second, the term illusion or hallucination implies a mental perception of something without physical reality. But the phenomena we are discussing is inherently non-physical. If I perceive it, it is real. You probably meant to say that the origin of the effect is speculative, not that its nature was unreal. In that case again I would have to question whether you are in a position to influence my assessment of my experience when you have no actual knowledge or perception of that experience. I think I am on very solid ground to reject your postulate as being circular. By that I mean, you believe that there is no God, so you will not consider that as an explanation.

You are missing my point. I am not claiming that the correct explanation is that your experiences are an illusion. I am asking you how you determine whether they are an illusion or if they are caused by an actual entity (god).

Quote

09-14-2011 , 06:05 PM

#29

duffe

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1,306

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebarnet

Scientific method, knowledge, man, mind, scientist, the universe, language, god?

4,4,5,2,7,1,6,3 IMO

Worth making into a thesis?

I'll go with mind. I find it far less problematic to consider physical and/or objective reality as an epiphenomenona of mind rather than the other way around.

Quote

09-14-2011 , 06:23 PM

#30

RLK

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

I do think I agree that the argument fails, at the time I was attempting to think of essential properties, and to argue that all humans have such essential properties, but admit I may have rushed into my response a bit.

I have no problem, conceding that the argument fails I am trying to learn about argumentation, so if I make a rather amateurish error, I will be more than willing to accept it. However, RLK is just a jerk. I recall in another thread he said that most of the atheists on here were of "diminished intellectual capacity." He is looking for a boxing match, I'm playing baseball.

I agree with OP that I was overly harsh, so for that I will apologize.

However, you would not admit your error until an atheist pointed it out to you. That is a serious flaw imo.

I think I am going to give this forum a rest for awhile. I am getting pretty jaded about the overall discussion going on (not specifically directed at you). I may well reappear, but not until my perception of the interaction is more positive.

Quote

09-14-2011 , 06:34 PM

#31

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLK

I agree with OP that I was overly harsh, so for that I will apologize.

However, you would not admit your error until an atheist pointed it out to you. That is a serious flaw imo.

I think I am going to give this forum a rest for awhile. I am getting pretty jaded about the overall discussion going on (not specifically directed at you). I may well reappear, but not until my perception of the interaction is more positive.

when you make a post basically calling someone stupid multiple times, can you really be surprised when they get defensive about their position? I think that's rather plain to see, but no, its the atheist cabal instead.

I accept your apology but at least acknowledge that it was your post which poisoned the lines of communication, not ATHEIST VS THEIST OMG.

That an atheist pointed it out to me was incidental. That a person pointed it out to me who didn't make me see red when I read their post is what is at issue here.

Quote

09-14-2011 , 07:24 PM

#32

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

Seems fine to me.

1. Bill is a human
2. Bill has consciousness
so 3. Humans have consciousness

Seems valid to me, it certainly works if we plug in other things besides consciousness

1.Bill is a Human
2. Bill speaks a language
so 3. Humans speak languages.

or

1. Bill is a human
2. Bill can compose a symphony
so 3. Humans can compose symphonies...

where is the gap in the logic? What evidence do you have that you are essentially different from any other human being?

After thinking about it, I can see the flaw

1. Bill is a human
2. Bill doesnt like sprouts
3. Humans dont like sprouts

You could argue that consciousness is an attribute and liking sprouts isnt, but in general, he is probably right that you cant extrapolate from one human to all humans, things that cant be seen to be common to all humans.

Quote

09-14-2011 , 07:27 PM

#33

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

After thinking about it, I can see the flaw

1. Bill is a human
2. Bill doesnt like sprouts
3. Humans dont like sprouts

You could argue that consciousness is an attribute and liking sprouts isnt, but in general, he is probably right that you cant extrapolate from one human to all humans, things that cant be seen to be common to all humans.

yea, that's basically it. It's an extraordinarily weak inference, as RLK said

Quote

09-14-2011 , 07:28 PM

#34

CompleteDegen

veteran

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,480

I assumed OP was only speaking about mind/knowledge in regards to humans, so arrogant on my part. I therefore rearrange my original progression to universe->mind->knowledge->scientific method->man->scientist. Again, language can fall nearly anywhere after mind I'd say.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last