why does this forum care so much about religion

Subfallen · #1 10-12-2007, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen,
Actually, LOL. Based on your most recent post referencing that thread weeks ago, I don't think you even comprehended what I was arguing for or against.

I think this logic stuff is over your head. Don't worry about it fella! I'll try to be nicer in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF LOGIC IS OVER MY HEAD THAN I SHOULD BE EXCEPTIONALLY EASY TO REFUTE.

Again, my position is very simple: it is dishonest to imply (through confusion of categories or equivocated language) that Christian metaphysics are actually meaningful.

Refutation please?

Matt R. · #2 10-12-2007, 03:49 PM

FROM THE OTHER THREAD. I WILL TRY TO SUMMARIZE.

Basically, no one has any clue what you mean when you say "actually meaningful". WHAT I WAS REFUTING FOR THE 18 BILLIONTH TIME, is that you do not have to observe something for it to have "actual meaning". I claimed no position on Christian metaphysics or Christian morality.

Subfallen · #3 10-12-2007, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FROM THE OTHER THREAD. I WILL TRY TO SUMMARIZE.

Basically, no one has any clue what you mean when you say "actually meaningful". WHAT I WAS REFUTING FOR THE 18 BILLIONTH TIME, is that you do not have to observe something for it to have "actual meaning". I claimed no position on Christian metaphysics or Christian morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually meaningful: makes a falsifiable statement about observable reality. Subjectively meaningful: everything else.

Different categories, confusing them without admitting it is mendacious. This is what BTIrish was doing.

Matt R. · #4 10-12-2007, 03:56 PM

So, by your own definitions, pure mathematics is only SUBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL. This is extremely important, please take note of what I am saying. In other words (edit: by your definitions), statements involving pure mathematics are not objectively falsifiable.

You cannot OBSERVE statements arising in pure mathematics. Math is still "actually meaningful".

Your eyeball is not some magic "actual meaning" granting entity.

I'm am NOT saying Christian metaphysics or morality must be true, in any way shape or form.

Subfallen · #5 10-12-2007, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, by your own definitions, pure mathematics is only SUBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL. This is extremely important, please take note of what I am saying. In other words (edit: by your definitions), statements involving pure mathematics are not objectively falsifiable.

You cannot OBSERVE statements arising in pure mathematics. Math is still "actually meaningful".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, math is a priori only subjectively meaningful. As Einstein said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

If you thought you were trapping me here, you're just adorable.

[ QUOTE ]
Your eyeball is not some magic "actual meaning" granting entity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yes, the senses and their interface with consciousness are the necessary and sufficient standard for falsifiability and thus actual meaning.

Matt R. · #6 10-12-2007, 04:05 PM

Oh, how cute. You really think mathematics is only "subjectively meaningful"? You really aren't going to back down from that? I'm sorry, but if you actually hold this position, I'm not sure I can debate past that. It is really about as "obviously wrong", from my perspective, as you can get. Math is the FOUNDATION for the hard sciences. How on Earth is your eyeball superior to math in finding "real truth"?

So, what it is about your eyeball that magically grants you priveleged metaphysical status?

Subfallen · #7 10-12-2007, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, how cute. You really think mathematics is only "subjectively meaningful"? You really aren't going to back down from that? I'm sorry, but if you actually hold this position, I'm not sure I can debate past that. It is really about as "obviously wrong", from my perspective, as you can get. Math is the FOUNDATION for the hard sciences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the wonderful little Einstein aphorism? The foundation of the hard sciences is making empirically falsifiable models. Obviously the models are usually mathematical. However the "actual meaning" of a model is determined by how its observable predictions perform.

[ QUOTE ]

So, what it is about your eyeball that magically grants you priveleged metaphysical status?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actual meaning requires a falsifiable impact on consciousness. What on earth is "magical" about that? Isn't it the most frightfully economical and pragmatic requirement imaginable?

tpir · #8 10-12-2007, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, how cute. You really think mathematics is only "subjectively meaningful"? You really aren't going to back down from that? I'm sorry, but if you actually hold this position, I'm not sure I can debate past that. It is really about as "obviously wrong", from my perspective, as you can get. Math is the FOUNDATION for the hard sciences. How on Earth is your eyeball superior to math in finding "real truth"?

So, what it is about your eyeball that magically grants you priveleged metaphysical status?

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is turning into a huge leveling of sorts. Posts like this are what makes me care about religion so much. i.e. it takes religion to make someone as confident as you are about things you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.

Matt R. · #9 10-12-2007, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, yes, the senses and their interface with consciousness are the necessary and sufficient standard for falsifiability and thus actual meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on man. You're telling me that Euler, after he went blind, was thereafter incapable of discovering ideas with "actual meaning".

Matt R. · #10 10-12-2007, 04:09 PM

Another question for you. Are people with biological defects in their eye incapable of discovering "actually meaningful" truth, or claims, whatever?

How do we KNOW that your, or my, or anyone else's eyeball works so perfectly that it is the ultimate standard for knowledge? It's not because of an a priori assumption is it?