Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[WaveJumper]

I would agree that we use other instruments besides our regular five to probe reality, but for all that it's unclear to me how that invalidates what we have learned from our regular senses. Using these extrasensory instruments has certainly helped us figure more out, but that doesn't make the fundamental things we learned with just our five senses wrong.

As far as what we experiece in daily life, there is no way our 5 senses could be wrong. As far as the true nature of reality is concerned, your sensory experience is wrong.

 

[Pupil]

As far as what we experiece in daily life, there is no way our 5 senses could be wrong. As far as the true nature of reality is concerned, your sensory experience is wrong.

That's precisely what I'm getting at. How is our sensory experience wrong even with regard to the 'nature of reality'?

Also, this is a totally different argument but, you said:

The only ones making definitive claims that god exists or does not exist are atheists, that's why you attract negative attention. There is no scientific or rational basis for your definitive assertions. Lack of belief is not equal to:

"God does not exist!"

"God is a myth"

etc.

Your first sentence is just wrong. There are theists make claims that God definitely does exist, and atheists (like me) do not claim a God definitely exists or doesn't exist. Those are two counterexamples.

 

[vectorcube]

No, as I said before, agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Again, atheism is a lack of belief in a god. If you claim absolute knowledge there are no deities, it is strong atheism. If you claim you don't know, it is weak atheism or agnosticism. That is how I define it, how Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett (the four horsemen of atheism most people know), Dillahunty, etc...define it. Reminds me of a quote:

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." - Don Hirschberg

I am just telling you what atheism mean. It is a ontological thesis that there is no god. Your answer about the lack of "belief" has intentional meaning only. The belief of p does not follow that p is either true or false, thus, there is not correspondence to any state of affair in the world. To make it more clear:




There is a distinction between proposition p:

1.belief p

2. p is true.

From 1, p cannot say anything about the world. From 2, p is true amount an existential claim of at least one state of affair that makes p true, or in modal theory, a model for p.


It is you job to show what belief p mean. I say it means nothing, because there is no corresponding state of affair for p. There is no model to render p true.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

 

[WaveJumper]

That's precisely what I'm getting at. How is our sensory experience wrong even with regard to the 'nature of reality'?

Experimental observations simply do not support the conclusion that absolute time and absolute space exist. Both Time and Space are relative. I will not delve into quantum theory and derive conclusions that everything is one wholeness and such, as this is still one of the unsettled questions, but your sensory perceptions aren't supported by experiments in QM either.

The only ones making definitive claims that god exists or does not exist are atheists, that's why you attract negative attention. There is no scientific or rational basis for your definitive assertions. Lack of belief is not equal to:

"God does not exist!"

"God is a myth"

etc.

Your first sentence is just wrong. There are theists make claims that God definitely does exist, and atheists (like me) do not claim a God definitely exists or doesn't exist. Those are two counterexamples.

In this thread. I did fail to include "in this thread" only atheists are making definitive statements about god.

 

[Pupil]

I am just telling you what atheism mean.

No, you're asserting a different definition of atheism, and I'm telling you it is wrong.

It is a ontological thesis that there is no god. Your answer about the lack of "belief" has intentional meaning only. The belief of p does not follow that p is either true or false, thus, there is not correspondence to any state of affair in the world. To make it more clear:

There is a distinction between proposition p:

1.belief p

2. p is true.

From 1, p cannot say anything about the world. From 2, p is true amount an existential claim of at least one state of affair that makes p true, or in modal theory, a model for p.It is you job to show what belief p mean. I say it means nothing, because there is no corresponding state of affair for p. There is no model to render p true.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

There are three options. 1) You claim p is true, 2) You claim p is false, 3) You do not affirm or negate the truth of p. The latter two are atheistic (if p = the existence of God).

 

[Pupil]

In this thread. I did fail to include "in this thread" only atheists are making definitive statements about god.

I have commented many times in this thread, am an atheist, and do not make definitive statements about God.

 

[robertm]

your sensory perceptions aren't supported by experiments in QM either.

Sensory perceptions are the product of brains which both arise from and operate under the same principals. The distinction and categorization we practice regarding phenomenon are distinct and categorical only in our mental models of reality, which is an emergent property of primate brains. If a theoretical model fails to describe some aspect of our universe it is a testament only to our failure in modeling. The, often vacuous, arbitrary abstractions one fleeces together from sensory input are what is not supported by observation, not the raw electrochemical signaling events themselves.

 

[vectorcube]

No, you're asserting a different definition of atheism, and I'm telling you it is wrong.


There are three options. 1) You claim p is true, 2) You claim p is false, 3) You do not affirm or negate the truth of p. The latter two are atheistic (if p = the existence of God).

Ok, i am getting too technical and lost you. I have you know that i was not talking about god, but rather the explication of proposition p as a belief. I have you know that p cannot make any ontological claim at all. That is why your definition fail to be meaningful. Again, this is not about god, religion, or anything. This a purely technical matter.

 

[vectorcube]

No, you're asserting a different definition of atheism.

No. My definition is the right. Take that!

 

[Math Is Hard]

I don't see this ever getting back on topic.