|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BlackStaR
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 1252
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
landonyl,
Having said that, then why do people fall into " faith"? Every religious nuts have "faith".
_________________
</islam> </MohaMutt- (SBUH)- Shoe Be Upon Him >
... I am the Chill in the air..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BlackStaR wrote: |
landonyl,
Having said that, then why do people fall into " faith"? Every religious nuts have "faith". |
Well, I am almost willing to say that without faith in something humans cannot survive. Our mind is so dynamic as compated to what we know that faith is necessary. Even belief in athiesm is faith in something, usually science. Population of athiests is very low in the world otherwise they would be no different than the believers in wrongdoing. Actually, communism is pretty athiest system and you see what they are doing to people who believe in God. In China, for example, christians have to hide their belief or their archbishop is now allowed to goto vatican.
So it is not only religious heads, non-religious heads also have faith into something it is just that they have faith in something that is opposite to most people who believe in God and religions.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| So from a baby's point of view there would be no knowledge in the world? |
Point of view is irrelevant.
If something is known by a single person, it is knowledge.
If it is not known by anybody, it is not knowledge.
There are no other criteria or qualifications.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| Mr. Huxley that is very good but now you need to define the word "Known" because now I need to know what is considered known and what is "unknown" ? Is "Known" something that we can feel and experience or "known" is only what is proven in lab? |
Something is "known" if it is conceived of by a sentient mind. It does not need to be "experienced" or even true. It only needs to be conceived. Labs are useful for discovering knowledge, and more importantly parsing true knowledge from false knowledge. But they are not necessary.
| landonlyl wrote: |
| And if your definition of "known" also includes what we feel and experience along with what is proven in lab than what is really "unknown"? |
Anything that is not conceived of by a sentient mind is unknown. It may very well exist, but until it is conceived it remains unknown.
The relationship with truth is, however, asymmetrical.
Things either exist or they do not. And things are either conceived (known) or they are not (unknown).
Something that exists and is also conceived is "knowledge" that is "true."
Something that exists and is not conceived is not "knowledge," though it is still true.
Something that does not exist but is conceived is "knowledge" that is false.
Something that does not exist and is not conceived is not "knowledge"... but it is also not false because it neither exists nor is known.
Falsehood exists only in the sentient mind, and nowhere else in nature.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Indandonlyi:That is correct, Intelligence does not exist independent of of living being but if evolution happened as per CC the intelligence as we know it took only birth in last few hundread thousand years. So where did the intelligence that predated this new intelligence in nature and universe come from? |
I was talking about human intelligence or intelligence in sp.Homosapiens
Your definition of intelligence is intelligence in all living beings starting with first DNA. To you all survival mechanism of living organisms involves intelligence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crazy canuck wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Indandonlyi:That is correct, Intelligence does not exist independent of of living being but if evolution happened as per CC the intelligence as we know it took only birth in last few hundread thousand years. So where did the intelligence that predated this new intelligence in nature and universe come from? |
I was talking about human intelligence or intelligence in sp.Homosapiens
Your definition of intelligence is intelligence in all living beings starting with first DNA. To you all survival mechanism of living organisms involves intelligence. |
CC I know you were, I was just taking this from the other way to prove a point. Let's bring an end to this intelligence discussion. Tell me if intelligence involves decision making and making a decision requires an entity that makes decision?
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
IandonlyI wrote:
Mr. Huxley that is very good but now you need to define the word "Known" because now I need to know what is considered known and what is "unknown" ? Is "Known" something that we can feel and experience or "known" is only what is proven in lab?
Something is "known" if it is conceived of by a sentient mind. It does not need to be "experienced" or even true. It only needs to be conceived. Labs are useful for discovering knowledge, and more importantly parsing true knowledge from false knowledge. But they are not necessary. |
Agreed.
| Quote: |
Anything that is not conceived of by a sentient mind is unknown. It may very well exist, but until it is conceived it remains unknown.
Things either exist or they do not. And things are either conceived (known) or they are not (unknown). |
Disagree. For the bold part, can you give me a example of unknown then? Technically you cant even give definition of unknown if it is something that is not concieved by mind. The word unknown then voids itself. I mean with that statement unknown cannot be defined as you can not define anything untill you know it.
Anyhow, if above id the definition of unknown then why is Islame's statement that "I have knowledge of unknown" any different than your statement in bold? Becase you "KNOW" what unknown is and he too "KNOWS" what unknown is. To KNOW itself is a knowledge. With your definition the word unknown does not exist. You see?
The correct statement as per me for unknown is "Something that cannot be percieved by human mind. Something that cannot be understood. but it is felt or thought of". In summary you cannot put up a definition of something that you have no knwledge of IF you believe in the statement in bold.
Taking a little detour here, sentient means concious mind. With the years and years of practising Yoga/meditation did not give the Yogis of India a concious mind? In fact, Yoga or meditation are very central part of Indian religions as it bring conciousness and one of the requirements for unification with God is concious mind. So I guess it proves that Belief in God is a product of concious mind and it is not like a product of false fear or worry.(BTW, science has proved that meditation brings conciousness). To be noted later.
| Quote: |
The relationship with truth is, however, asymmetrical.
Things either exist or they do not. And things are either conceived (known) or they are not (unknown).
Something that exists and is also conceived is "knowledge" that is "true."
Something that exists and is not conceived is not "knowledge," though it is still true.
Something that does not exist but is conceived is "knowledge" that is false.
Something that does not exist and is not conceived is not "knowledge"... but it is also not false because it neither exists nor is known.
Falsehood exists only in the sentient mind, and nowhere else in nature. |
Agreed with everything except The below.
Falsehood exists only in the sentient mind, and nowhere else in nature
Disagree because falsehood is actually a product of unconciousness. For example, people way before Newton knew that fruit falls on ground but it was newton's conciousness mind that questioned the reason and he found it. So people were so used to living with that fact and so unconciousness about it that no one paid attention but Newton's did. So although I agree with the statement, I do not agree with the sentient mind part.
ALSO PLEASE NOTE THIS STATEMENT WHERE FALSEHOOD ONLY EXISTS IN MIND, to be brought up later.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all?
Last edited by IandonlyI on Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Huxley,
While I wait for your answers I take some ideas from your previous post and post a question.
Positive things like hope, positive thinking, good wishes etc and negative things like anger, jealousy, revenge etc. (I name them positive and negative because science has proven that first things bring positive results for human body and mind and latter brings negative results so they are atleast positive and negative as far as our mind and body are conerned)
which one of the below are they?
Something that exists and is also conceived is "knowledge" that is "true."
Something that exists and is not conceived is not "knowledge," though it is still true.
Something that does not exist but is conceived is "knowledge" that is false.
Something that does not exist and is not conceived is not "knowledge"... but it is also not false because it neither exists nor is known.
Falsehood exists only in the sentient mind, and nowhere else in nature.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| Quote: |
Anything that is not conceived of by a sentient mind is unknown. It may very well exist, but until it is conceived it remains unknown.
Things either exist or they do not. And things are either conceived (known) or they are not (unknown). |
Disagree. For the bold part, can you give me a example of unknown then? |
Of course not. If I gave you a specific example then it would not be unknown. It might be imaginary, but it would still be knowledge since it was conceived of by a sentient being.
| landonlyl wrote: |
| Technically you cant even give definition of unknown if it is something that is not concieved by mind. The word unknown then voids itself. I mean with that statement unknown cannot be defined as you can not define anything untill you know it. |
You are equivocating. You are confusing the word "unknown, " the category of things that are "unknown" and specific "unknown" things.
Each are independent of each other, and defining either the first or second has no implication regarding the existence of the third.
| landonlyl wrote: |
| Anyhow, if above id the definition of unknown then why is Islame's statement that "I have knowledge of unknown" any different than your statement in bold? |
His is logically contradictory and self refuting. Mine is not.
| landonlyl wrote: |
| The correct statement as per me for unknown is "Something that cannot be percieved by human mind. |
What would lead you to imagine that there anything that cannot be conceived by human mind? It is a certainly a historically risky position to take, and has ended up burning essentially everybody who has ever held it.
In general, the position you hold is one embraced as an intellectual punt by people who cannot assemble genuine evidence for the existence of something in which they would deeply like to believe. It serves to draw a defensive firewall against the inconvenient impositions of evidence and reason.
| landonlyl wrote: |
Agreed with everything except The below.
Falsehood exists only in the sentient mind, and nowhere else in nature
Disagree because falsehood is actually a product of unconciousness. For example, people way before Newton knew that fruit falls on ground but it was newton's conciousness mind that questioned the reason and he found it. So people were so used to living with that fact and so unconciousness about it that no one paid attention but Newton's did. So although I agree with the statement, I do not agree with the sentient mind part. |
Sorry, but that discussion is absurd.
How can ignorance be false? False is not an absence of truth, it is positive characteristic in its own right. And the example you gave us is splendid in its instructional value.
When no one contemplated the reason that apples fall, there were no false beliefs regarding the cause. There were no beliefs at all.
When Newton proposed his Universal Law of Gravitation there was for the first time a substantive, positive assertion regarding the causes of falling fruit. There was, for the first time, a "belief." And that belief was either true or false.
Einstein fairly well established that Newton's belief was false. His math was good enough to make the belief useful, but not good enough to make it true.
In other words, there was no "false" until the issue was conceived of by a human mine... until it became "knowledge." It is likely that Einstein's "belief" is true, but there is no certainly in science. There may be a different true cause that we just haven't conceived yet.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| Positive things like hope, positive thinking, good wishes etc and negative things like anger, jealousy, revenge etc. (I name them positive and negative because science has proven that first things bring positive results for human body and mind and latter brings negative results so they are atleast positive and negative as far as our mind and body are conerned) |
Let me stop you right there. Where has "science proven" any such thing?
In actuality, science has shown that all of these things are ambivalent in the utilitarian effects they produce. Each of these imposes a set of compromises not just on the mind and body of the person experiencing them, but on the minds and bodies of other beings experiencing the results of their exposition.
They all persist because, at different levels of natural selection (the gene, the individual, the population, the species) all of them net out to providing a selective advantage. In other words... anger, jealously and revenge each persist because their net effect is improved survival for the species that expresses them, just as altruism does.
| landonlyl wrote: |
which one of the below are they?
Something that exists and is also conceived is "knowledge" that is "true."
Something that exists and is not conceived is not "knowledge," though it is still true.
Something that does not exist but is conceived is "knowledge" that is false.
Something that does not exist and is not conceived is not "knowledge"... but it is also not false because it neither exists nor is known. |
None of them are actual "things" at all. Each of them are instead behaviors that sentient beings are capable of expressing. They are third person descriptions of the phenomenon that we each experience in the first person as "mind."
Mind is what brains do. Therefore, at the most fundamental level each is a particular set of electrochemical processes in the material brain. Those processes are networks of things that are tangible, material, physical and true. At the level of experience and expression (i.e. "knowledge") however, they can be either true or false.... often a little of both at the same time.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Huxley I will reply soon. And this is no excuse but for past few days I have been too pissed off to be able to think and get involved in something as interesting as this discussion. So I will get back to you.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huxley wrote: |
Point of view is irrelevant.
If something is known by a single person, it is knowledge.
If it is not known by anybody, it is not knowledge.
There are no other criteria or qualifications. |
It seems that you have admitted defeat on the Cause and Effect angle of this debate, that is why i have not got a refutation from you so far.
And why is the baby's point of view irrelevant? It is what the baby knows, it is the baby's knowledge.
And you are discounting Jesus's/buddha's knowledge if you do not believe in God. And What makes you think that the divine being is not aware? So what the divine being knows can also be way beyond our knowledge. So what we do not know, can actually be KNOWN by a divine being? So does that satisfy your criteria that knowledge needs to be known?
We human beings are even limited knowing what is already known. For example, will you be able to learn all the languages of this world and speak it fluently? You could try it everyday for the rest of your life but how much could you learn? So does it make the languages you failed to learn as Unknown to you? Yes but this unknown becomes a personal concept applicable only to you. It does not mean that the other languages do not exisit.
So you see my friend, unknown is knowledge after all because human beings and animals have different levels of it and considering jesus and buddha were human beings too, we have to agree that unknown is knowledge too. That is why i keep telling you that it is wrong to reject God based only on your knowledge. OR somebody elses. We have to take into account every single human being's knowledge.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| landonlyl wrote: |
Something that exists and is also conceived is "knowledge" that is "true." Something that exists and is not conceived is not "knowledge," though it is still true.
Something that does not exist but is conceived is "knowledge" that is false. Something that does not exist and is not conceived is not "knowledge"... but it is also not false because it neither exists nor is known. Falsehood exists only in the sentient mind, and nowhere else in nature. |
Hello Landonlyl, thank you for your contribution to this thread.
What do you think of "For something to be true, it need not necessarily be known?" I think this in itself should prove that unknown can be knowledge too.
However, don;t expect our friend huxley to acknowledge your points, he will never do that 
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| It seems that you have admitted defeat on the Cause and Effect angle of this debate, that is why i have not got a refutation from you so far. |
Your arguments on that issue were destroyed months ago. That is why we discuss them no longer.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| And why is the baby's point of view irrelevant? It is what the baby knows, it is the baby's knowledge. |
All points of view are irrelevant. Not just the baby's.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| And you are discounting Jesus's/buddha's knowledge if you do not believe in God. |
Nope.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| And What makes you think that the divine being is not aware? |
Your complete inability to meet the challenge that began this thread.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zaffar
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Huxley You Are An Stupid Athiest |
|
|
| Quote: |
am attempting to do so by asking you to show us one.
After all... I've shown you examples of scientific knowledge. Now it's your turn |
Huxley if your memory has not become rusty you would certainly remember me that i am the true believer in the existance of God and the Prophet Hood of His last messanger and i have really tried to tell you that Believe in the god is the essence of Enlightment and for god sake stop your habbit of Arguments V/S Arguments, no matter how stupid they are.
_________________
nothing more to say |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
