Religulous

[Kuya]

Well, the proper term is incomplete (or it isn't a complete model).

I didn't get the economics example.

[Suiram]

I think part of the problem here (although not a prohibitive one) is a confusion in language. "Model" is being used both as a synonym for "theory" (a set of axioms and their consequences) in the broader scientific sense, but also being invoked in reference to Godel's Theorem, where its meaning in formal logic is essentially the opposite. The theory is the set of axioms, a model is a mathematical object that satisfies those axioms, and as such there is no such thing as an "incomplete model" in that sense, as every sentence of your language is going to be true or false in that model (but whether or not it is provable in your theory is another matter altogether, which is the point of the incompleteness theorem.)

The Economics thing wasn't an example, but more my attempt to paraphrase Kaylia's post in a way that would illuminate what I saw as the flaw in it. In the spoilered passage, Hawking says that much like how there are unprovable statements in formal arithmetic, so too are there possibly unprovable truths about the physical world. Kaylia seemed to be saying that this was a result of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, rather than a similarity to it, which I disagreed with. He then responded that there must be uncertainty in physical theories due to their being grounded in mathematics, and the Economics thing was to illustrate how I felt that line of reasoning was sour. I should say that I don't necessarily disagree with Kaylia's overall argument prior to the Godel tangent, but a mathematical proof such as Godel's brings with it a level of absolute authority that is unjustified in this discussion, and I felt it disingenuous to try to pass off what are essentially metaphysical arguments as being a direct consequence of one.

[Kuya]

Oh alright, i just sort of found it odd because economics is not necessarily based on mathematics, rather often it is based on observation as human involvement often makes something that would otherwise be true, false.

[Cow_k]

Going way back... Stating that someone who proclaims to be agnostic is automatically atheist because they can't claim to believe in theist views is insanity. Does that mean that they're automatically theist because they don't claim to believe the tenants of atheism? A true agnostic doesn't automatically not believe in a higher power, they say "I have no idea". They don't automatically say God exists, they instead say "I don't know." What kind of retarded argument assumes there's only two physical states of being over something that's basically an opinion towards a personal lifestyle?

Atheist:
Dictionary.com:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

American Heritage:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Webster's Revised:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

A true agnostic is none of these things. An agnostic says: "I don't know" How does that automatically translate to "Well, since I claim to not know, I automatically dismiss the tenants of religion as untrue." An agnostic never says that theists are wrong. An agnostic never says that atheists are wrong.

Agnostic
Dictionary.com:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

American Heritage:
1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Webster's revised:
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Seriously, what kind of stupid do you have to be to say that agnosticism is a fake terminology and that it automatically means atheism. Yeesh. An atheist doesn't say "I don't know if God exists or not" They say "Without a doubt, God doesn't exist. Under no circumstances can there be a higher power controlling the universe, everything that is now, ever will be and ever was is 100% random science without a guiding hand." You people make my head hurt.

[Priran]

imo agnosticism is just stupid conflict avoidance. god isn't a cat in a steel box, you either believe in one or you don't.





oh and the movie was funny


this thread is still about the movie right

[Kaylia]

I think part of the problem here (although not a prohibitive one) is a confusion in language. "Model" is being used both as a synonym for "theory" (a set of axioms and their consequences) in the broader scientific sense, but also being invoked in reference to Godel's Theorem, where its meaning in formal logic is essentially the opposite. The theory is the set of axioms, a model is a mathematical object that satisfies those axioms, and as such there is no such thing as an "incomplete model" in that sense, as every sentence of your language is going to be true or false in that model (but whether or not it is provable in your theory is another matter altogether, which is the point of the incompleteness theorem.)

The Economics thing wasn't an example, but more my attempt to paraphrase Kaylia's post in a way that would illuminate what I saw as the flaw in it. In the spoilered passage, Hawking says that much like how there are unprovable statements in formal arithmetic, so too are there possibly unprovable truths about the physical world. Kaylia seemed to be saying that this was a result of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, rather than a similarity to it, which I disagreed with. He then responded that there must be uncertainty in physical theories due to their being grounded in mathematics, and the Economics thing was to illustrate how I felt that line of reasoning was sour. I should say that I don't necessarily disagree with Kaylia's overall argument prior to the Godel tangent, but a mathematical proof such as Godel's brings with it a level of absolute authority that is unjustified in this discussion, and I felt it disingenuous to try to pass off what are essentially metaphysical arguments as being a direct consequence of one.

It's more than a similarity. Sciences is studying the effect to determine a cause. No matter what you do, if you're studying the world with the scientific methods, you will have to works with postulated axiom and observed result.

There is no difference between a mathematical implication, or the causality you observe in the nature. In fact, if a cause could lead to 2 differents result, your model wouldn't be able to predict anything.

[Kaylia]

imo agnosticism is just stupid conflict avoidance. god isn't a cat in a steel box, you either believe in one or you don't.

As demonstrated in this thread, agnostic clearly avoid conflict!

[Jefe]

The thread went to the shithole as soon as the usual rabid theist/atheists started to "argue," i.e. fling poo liek monkeys (skipped it).

ANYWAYS, this movie needs to be seen by moar people. Btw, the film doesn't try to convince anybody about the existence/or not of a superior being such as God. It is moar liek a critique towards organized groups (religions), zealots, and its social consequences. This ain't no documentary, but a comedy...

@Kuya, would it hurt you to put some periods in your wall-o-textos? t('-'t)

[Priran]

As demonstrated in this thread, agnostic clearly avoid conflict!

There are two options: A or B. People who choose A will disagree with people who choose B and vice versa. Saying "hurr I pick C" gives you the advantage of being the target of no one's arguments because you haven't actually made a decision. Whatever feelings of superiority that results in are incidental.

[Kaylia]

There are two options: A or B. People who choose A will disagree with people who choose B and vice versa. Saying "hurr I pick C" gives you the advantage of being the target of no one's arguments because you haven't actually made a decision. Whatever feelings of superiority that results in are incidental.

No, an agnostic simply refuse to use his beliefs to answer this question, and because of this, he is unable to take a position.

If I decide to pick a choice, it wouldn't be possible for me to defend my point or attack the other side, because it's an act of faith either way. Anyway, as long everyone understand that it require belief to pick a side, there is no possible argument that could be made. There is only an argument when people pretend their beliefs are not belief.

[Priran]

that argument is so far beyond tired it's not even funny

Playing word games and trying to turn a statement of disbelief into a statement of belief in an opposite is bad science. If I say I don't own a Porsche, does that mean I own a car that is not a Porsche?



edit: the part where he told the pothead his hair was on fire was pretty funny

[Kuya]

I sometimes wonder how many people confuse being irreligious with atheist.

[Kaylia]

Look, we discussed about this for 4 pages. I'm not having the same argument twice, just go back a few page and read everything. Both strong atheism and theism require a belief. If you're a non-theism, than describe yourself correctly.

[edit]

god isn't a cat in a steel box, you either believe in one or you don't.

Mind rewording this line differently too...It kinda imply you have to believe he is not in the box. If you don't need beliefs to say he isn't in the box, you might as well demonstrate that he isn't in the box.

[Priran]

I sometimes wonder how many people confuse being irreligious with atheist.

is this like the protestant reformation where everyone with a blog is going to create some edgy new word for the same fucking thing?

I mean seriously, is there a word for that in spanish or does english have the privilege of being ahead of the curve?

Mind rewording this line differently too...It kinda imply you have to believe he is not in the box.

no it doesn't. not any more than "I either have a sandwich or I don't" implies that my choices are having a sandwich or having an antisandwich.

[Kuya]

The problem that also seemingly gets ignored is that even if you were to assume that there are only two positions for theism, for or against, agnosticism doesn't just assume a position in relation to theism, and this argument hasn't just been limited to theism, just brushed off to the side because of the importance the aspect of judeo-christian mentality has on the debate.

Irreligious does not mean the same thing as atheist, if you want to believe otherwise, be my guest.

[Kaylia]

is this like the protestant reformation where everyone with a blog is going to create some edgy new word for the same fucking thing?

I mean seriously, is there a word for that in spanish or does english have the privilege of being ahead of the curve?

Dammit...just go read the previous pages. If "atheism" exclude everyone who don't believe, than atheism has to include agnosticism.

Don't you understand how ridiculous it is to have an "atheist" call out another "atheist" for being lazy. If you want to specify the meaning of every word to avoid the confusion, you can do it, but your car argument isn't valid anymore.

no it doesn't.

What did you mean then?
1- You believe the cat is in the box
2- You believe the cat is not in the box

or

1- You believe the cat is in the box
2- The cat is not in the box


If you're talking about the second situation, could you please demonstrate that the cat is not in the box.

I assumed you were talking about the first one, because demonstrating that God doesn't exist hasnt been done yet..but hey, I'm ready to hear your argument.

[Priran]

is english not your first language or something? I specifically said that god is not a cat in a box.

also, I stated that there is either "yes" or "no" with some people picking "no comment". coming up with 80 different ways to specify the intricacies of your decision of "no" doesn't magically make "no" include the "no comment" group, it turns the people who said "no" into pedantic shitheads who wear ironic t-shirts and fedoras.

[thebearofscience]

imo agnosticism is just stupid conflict avoidance. god isn't a cat in a steel box, you either believe in one or you don't.

i'm sure this has been stated before (and i've hardly read this thread), but seeing from future posts of dictionary definitions, being agnostic means you believe in a god, you just don't know who/what it is. most agnostics, for some reason, believe in weird "deep" shit. (i.e. simulated reality, etc).

(i may be wrong. oh well).

and every time i read this thread title i keep thinking of caligula and i don't know why. religul-, caligul-... eh.

[Kaylia]

is english not your first language or something? I specifically said that god is not a cat in a box.

also, I stated that there is either "yes" or "no" with some people picking "no comment". coming up with 80 different ways to specify the intricacies of your decision of "no" doesn't magically make "no" include the "no comment" group, it turns the people who said "no" into pedantic shitheads who wear ironic t-shirts and fedoras.

No, english isn't my first language, but it doesn't change anything to my post.


Not believing in God require a belief that there is no God. This belief can't be demonstrated.

[Kaylia]

i'm sure this has been stated before (and i've hardly read this thread), but seeing from future posts of dictionary definitions, being agnostic means you believe in a god, you just don't know who/what it is. most agnostics, for some reason, believe in weird "deep" shit. (i.e. simulated reality, etc).

(i may be wrong. oh well).

and every time i read this thread title i keep thinking of caligula and i don't know why. religul-, caligul-... eh.

Nah, what you're talking about is agnostic theism. Agnosticism more commonly refer to

Strong agnosticism: refers the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."


[edit]
The easiest way to categorize people imo is

Strong theism: Believe in God
Strong atheism: Believe that God doesn't exist
Strong agnosticism: Can't take a position due to the lack of information
Agnosticism theism: Believe in a "God", but can't define it.
Agnosticism atheism: Understand that his reject of God is is a belief