|
Callum
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: October 15, 2007, 11:40:29 PM » |
|
Having decided to skip a few posts and take a stab at this topic, I do ask for a little bit of leniency if I step on someone else's point.
Does anyone here understand the idea behind the Null Hypothesis. Essentially, Delta Nine started in an impossible position, he started by saying something does not exist, in this case, he states that thing do not happen for a reason, something that cannot be proven.
Here is the jest of the Null Hypothesis, You can prove something exists, but you can't prove that something does not exist. So in the chess game brought up in the beginning of this thread, did the player have a reason for giving up after the unpredictable move, probably, so in that case something happened for a reason. Now, the kid that gets hit by a car, was there a reason, we cannot conclude that there is a reason, but due to the Null Hypothesis, we cannot say there isn't one. Now, we can say, there is not enough evidence to show a reason exists for this to happen as of yet.
I have a few problems figuring out what is happening here with the two examples. It seems that we are in danger of assigning two different menaings to the word 'reason' and then mixing them up. The kid was knocked down. There was a set of conditions that caused the event - he was where he was, the car was travelling at a certain speed on a certain path, etc. The move the chess player made was equally caused - the two players had a plan to play a game, the rules of the game gave them certain goals and objectives, the skills they had acquired produced a framework for judgements, one of the players made a move that the other judged was decisive. In both cases we can analyse the causes of the event. In the chess case much of the proximal causes are within the players mind. That seems to be the distinction we are making - causes involving the mental are called 'reasons'. Those which don't are something else: causes, simpliciter (?). On this basis, there was no 'reason' for the kid getting knocked down - unless you want to start to analyse his reasons for being where he was, or the driver's reasons for driving as he did. But if we start to look at those, we will find that ultimately there was some form of external cause for every mental event that contributes to the 'reason'. Back to the chess players - they had to learn the moves, the openings, the theory, they had to be motivated to play, etc. No matter that most of the input was representational (words, diagrams), it flowed from elsewhere and was simply stored in their brains awaiting activation in this particualr set of circumstances. The idea of a 'reason' as involving the mental is valid if thats where we want to stop our analysis. And no doubt there are many who do not wish to consider further for whatever reason (!). But I suspect that this isn't what the everything-happens-for-a-reason brigade intend. They are smuggling in notions of a cosmic mentality along the lines of 'what was the reason for the earthquake and volcano destroying Sodom?'. And this, if I may guess, is because they do not wish to analyse chains of causes further, since they find a 'cosmic mentality' to be sufficient for their view of the world. We just need to look out for mixing of meanings like this to be able properly to analyse puzzles. A large number of our philosophical problems can be traced to unexamined use of language. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Technocrat
Full Member
Karma: +27/-149
Posts: 149
Soviet Technate
|
|
« Reply #61 on: October 17, 2007, 02:54:40 PM » |
|
When people say things happen for a reason, they usually aren't talking about the "no shit" definition, like "a cause." If I drop a ball, the reason it falls is due to gravity.
What they try to say is that there is some divine purpose, plan, or motivation for something to happen. Despite the emotional appeal of that, it's just not true. The reason why they believe that is so they can feel better about themselves. The world is a chaotic place and it doesn't care about you. Religion is often a way of anthropomorphizing it so it seems more familiar, understandable, manageable. If people think there's some "plan," they can just shirk reality and go "well, it must be happening for a reason!"
It's the divine father figure syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Soviet Tetris blocks drop you!
|
|
|
|
Baldar
|
|
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2007, 02:57:57 PM » |
|
When people say things happen for a reason, they usually aren't talking about the "no shit" definition, like "a cause." If I drop a ball, the reason it falls is due to gravity.
What they try to say is that there is some divine purpose, plan, or motivation for something to happen. Despite the emotional appeal of that, it's just not true. The reason why they believe that is so they can feel better about themselves. The world is a chaotic place and it doesn't care about you. Religion is often a way of anthropomorphizing it so it seems more familiar, understandable, manageable. If people think there's some "plan," they can just shirk reality and go "well, it must be happening for a reason!"
It's the divine father figure syndrome.
No, simply because you cannot divine the purpose, does not mean the purpose does not exist. It only means that you do not know what that purpose is, or was. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Technocrat
Full Member
Karma: +27/-149
Posts: 149
Soviet Technate
|
|
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2007, 05:23:41 PM » |
|
There is no evidence of purpose, ergo, there's no reason to project purpose. Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that fits the evidence without multiplying assumptions is the best explanation. It unnecessarily multiplies entities by assuming God or anything else "planned", give naturalistic, mechanistic explanations an the absence of this magical being.
One might as well claim the divine banana peel is responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Soviet Tetris blocks drop you!
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2007, 07:17:02 PM » |
|
RF, it is impossible to show evidence of the supernatural. The best you can claim is that there is a Gap in our knowledge. There is an abundance of evidence for causes that don't involve material mechanisms. In the science section I have provided several already. A universe that includes purpose and non-materialistic explanations fits available observable evidence far better than the belief you have placed your faith in. I can and have done far better than just claim there are gaps. You see only gaps because your prejudice has trained you only to see gaps. You and Baldar make the leap that the answer must somehow conform to your world view.
And despite you characterization, MM doesn't state "thats all there is" (again, a strawman by you and baldar). That is not my characterization and you know it. Again you change my meaning because you cannot impeach the properly framed argument. It claims that we have no way of testing for it (that which nothing can be said about is best to remain silent on), and that the fact that the study of matter is unfinished, and that it has produced results (unlike supernaturalism: prayer, etc.), that is it the best explanation for events in the universe. Yet there do exist tests for purposeful design. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wolfensheep
Newbie
Karma: +2/-1
Posts: 7
|
|
« Reply #65 on: October 18, 2007, 09:09:21 AM » |
|
Part of the issue here is the absolute certainty many of the arguments from either perspective (yes, everything happens for a reason, or no it doesn't) bring to the table. Both need to recognize that all is not known, and that in both cases, there is strong evidence within the support of their own arguments that brings a question about its validity. The faith in a Judeao-Christian God's creation of the world has some weak points if examined by the evidence of evolution, for instance. But our abilities to explain variations in evidence from the perspectives of science are not absolute either. Did our inability to measure infrared waves in the 19th century negate their existence? Is it rational to argue that what cannot be proved, cannot be, when the proof may be beyond our capacity? That God can't be, can't be, can't be, because I can't measure him or find him, is no more compelling a proof he doesn't exist than the notion that infrared wasn't there in the 19th century. That seems to be arrogance, when certainly many of the "beliefs" of science have been shown as inaccurate, just as many of the beliefs of religion are. The dogmatic absolute of being "right" unites both systems of belief in being wrong sometimes. Maybe the baby was born at the time she was because factors the parents were unaware of came into play--they wanted to bring in a new life in respect to the imminent passing of a loved one--and named her as they did for the same reason, and the birth was triggered by the stress of the relative's death. Or God smiled. Proof of either is beyond us. And evidence of both can be admitted by each. I suspect most people are better able to prove the earth is flat in their own experience, than are able to prove the reality. Meanwhile, isn't it a warm fuzzy to think the baby's birth happened for a reason within that context, (and until someone can disprove warm fuzzies, some of us will stay there)?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baldar
|
|
« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2007, 07:53:07 AM » |
|
I don't know that everything happens for a reason. I am saying it is utterly ridiculous to believe you know that everything does or does not happen for a reason simply because one can't quite "reason it out".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2007, 08:31:53 AM » |
|
This is one area of thought where you would expect to see a degree of agreement between those who see a higher power either participating in the creation or having setting up the rules for specific purposes and materialists who see the universe as destine or determined to operate the way it does. It is interesting that even here there is debate at all levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2007, 11:13:46 AM » |
|
I am saying it is utterly ridiculous to believe you know that everything does or does not happen for a reason simply because one can't quite "reason it out".
You are the only one claiming that anyone has said that. I doubt you'll find one person on the planet who believes that since it is self-evidently illogical. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +107/-139
Posts: 1,846
|
|
« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2007, 07:28:49 AM » |
|
Flames, insults, arguements on terms and strawmen not substantial to the topic split to Inferno.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2007, 10:15:17 AM » |
|
equivication is a bitch. everything does happen for a reason but not in the sense the supernaturalists mean. they mean that somehing happens for a reason that is made manifest by a supernatural power: made for a future purpose.
two different things, and people are confusing the issue unneccesarily.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #71 on: October 21, 2007, 07:33:37 AM » |
|
equivication is a bitch. everything does happen for a reason Indeed it does, I appreciate the correction. but not in the sense the supernaturalists mean. they mean that somehing happens for a reason that is made manifest by a supernatural power: made for a future purpose.
two different things, and people are confusing the issue unneccesarily. Different but also the same. Those who believe there is no transcending creative agent (God) and instead have faith in materialism and/or determinism also subscribe to things happening for a reason. There is no practical difference between those who accept materialism/determinism and those who accept a transcending creator. Both are faith based beliefs. To better see this is true, recognize that there is no direct evidence for materialism. Nothing to indicate that this universe was caused by material mechanisms. Nothing to indicate material mechanisms can account for life from lifeless matter. No evidence to support the premise. materialists are indeed driven by faith. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #72 on: October 21, 2007, 08:16:11 PM » |
|
equivication is a bitch. everything does happen for a reason Indeed it does, I appreciate the correction. but not in the sense the supernaturalists mean. they mean that somehing happens for a reason that is made manifest by a supernatural power: made for a future purpose.
two different things, and people are confusing the issue unneccesarily. Different but also the same. Those who believe there is no transcending creative agent (God) and instead have faith in materialism and/or determinism also subscribe to things happening for a reason. There is no practical difference between those who accept materialism/determinism and those who accept a transcending creator. Both are faith based beliefs. To better see this is true, recognize that there is no direct evidence for materialism. Nothing to indicate that this universe was caused by material mechanisms. Nothing to indicate material mechanisms can account for life from lifeless matter. No evidence to support the premise. materialists are indeed driven by faith. They are very different points of view. One suggests that a tsunami wipes out people because of tectonic shifts, the other, because it was the Will of a being who moved the tectonic plates. We have evidence of the former, but not of the latter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Technocrat
Full Member
Karma: +27/-149
Posts: 149
Soviet Technate
|
|
« Reply #73 on: October 21, 2007, 10:22:48 PM » |
|
You could certainly ascribe a "reason" behind something, whether or not there's evidence. Of course you can. Just be sure to make a note, though, that you are just pulling shit out of your ass and pretending it's a real answer. I can claim magic easter bunnies are responsible for the weather too. Doesn't mean that's worth anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Soviet Tetris blocks drop you!
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #74 on: October 22, 2007, 04:34:56 AM » |
|
You could certainly ascribe a "reason" behind something, whether or not there's evidence. Of course you can. Just be sure to make a note, though, that you are just pulling shit out of your ass and pretending it's a real answer. I can claim magic easter bunnies are responsible for the weather too. Doesn't mean that's worth anything.
Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
