Announcement

**Kidlicious** · September 1, 2012, 13:56

I'm really talking about human reasoning. We make conclusions without the aid of knowledge. This is something that we have the ability to do that aids us in knowing truth and it does. This ability to reason includes aquiring knowledge. But somethings don't require more knowledge to know, even though they can not be proven. Again, we may be wrong, but we are more likely to be right.

Computers have the ability to gather information and make conclusions. But they don't have common sense and therefore can not come to reasonable conclusions in the same way the we can.

**notyoueither** · September 1, 2012, 14:43

I'm thinking you have a very imperfect knowledge of the history of human knowledge and reason.

Just about everything that was common sense and prevailing thought in 1AD, outside of immediate observations, has turned out to be wrong; from the human body to the nature of the universe, from A to Z.

Lack of knowledge makes us far more likely to be wrong.

Common sense may be common, but too often it does not make sense once more is learned.

**Proteus_MST** · September 1, 2012, 15:09

Originally posted by notyoueither View Post

...

Common sense may be common, but too often it does not make sense once more is learned.

Yep, for an example:

An old and popular german saying is:
"Buchen sollst Du suchen, Eichen sollst Du weichen"
(In case of a Thunder Storm) You should look out for Beeches and avoid oak trees

Well, nice saying .. and it even made sense to people from natural observations (after a thunderstorm you will see lots of (lightning -) damaged oak trees, but only few damaged beeches), so people believed that Beeches were less often hit by lightnings.

Fact is however that it is the most dangerous thing you can do in case of a Thunderstorm, as beeches get hit as often by lightnings as oak trees ... in contrast to oak trees they have, however, an electrical conductive bark that leads the electrical energy of the lightning directly into the soil below them. Therefore someone who seeks cover under an oak tree might survive (as the tree takes up all electrical anergy) ... whereas someone seeking cover below a beech might get roasted by the electic current that flows unobstructed from the tree into the soil

So common sense in this case even endangers people

**Kidlicious** · September 1, 2012, 15:11

Originally posted by notyoueither View Post

I'm thinking you have a very imperfect knowledge of the history of human knowledge and reason.

Just about everything that was common sense and prevailing thought in 1AD, outside of immediate observations, has turned out to be wrong; from the human body to the nature of the universe, from A to Z.

Lack of knowledge makes us far more likely to be wrong.

Common sense may be common, but too often it does not make sense once more is learned.

As I've already pointed out I do not believe that you can have a complete knowledge of things like the human body by common sense. I do, however, see the value of it. Common sense has played an important role in science, in discovering things like how the human body works. Learning and common sense go hand in hand. Like I said, computers can collect data and make conclussions but they are really just tools used by people who can use common sense.

**Kidlicious** · September 1, 2012, 15:17

Originally posted by Proteus_MST View Post

Yep, for an example:

An old and popular german saying is:
"Buchen sollst Du suchen, Eichen sollst Du weichen"
(In case of a Thunder Storm) You should look out for Beeches and avoid oak trees

Well, nice saying .. and it even made sense to people from natural observations (after a thunderstorm you will see lots of (lightning -) damaged oak trees, but only few damaged beeches), so people believed that Beeches were less often hit by lightnings.

Fact is however that it is the most dangerous thing you can do in case of a Thunderstorm, as beeches get hit as often by lightnings as oak trees ... in contrast to oak trees they have, however, an electrical conductive bark that leads the electrical energy of the lightning directly into the soil below them. Therefore someone who seeks cover under an oak tree might survive (as the tree takes up all electrical anergy) ... whereas someone seeking cover below a beech might get roasted by the electic current that flows unobstructed from the tree into the soil

So common sense in this case even endangers people

Sometimes data can lead us to make wrong conclussions too about other things as it may change our world view. Yes, we have been wrong when we have used common sense in the past. Does that mean we shouldn't use it? Of course not. Because common sense tells us that common sense is good.

**Robert** · September 2, 2012, 09:04

Originally posted by Aeson View Post

You keep falling back to the universe needing a cause outside itself. That isn't a supportable statement to make.

I state that everything in the universe, as far as we know, needs a cause.
You can counter that by giving me some examples of stuff that doesn't need a cause.

If you agree that everything we know so far has need of a cause, then the next question is if the universe is not just the sum of all elements in the universe. If you agree with that as well, then we have the conclusion that the universe needs a cause as well.

Your analogy to a factory is bad, because a factory does have to be created. So if you weren't trying to imply the universe needed to be created (whether by God or some other natural method) it was a poor choice of analog.

You don't get my analogy. An analogy always goes wrong somewhere, b/c otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy but the exact same situation. The purpose of this analogy is to make clear that you can't be sure that the factory has to live up to the same conditions/laws/properties/whatever as the stuff it produces.

Do you agree with that? That a factory doesn't have to live up to the same conditions/laws/whatevers as the products it produces?

That's a badly worded statement that takes something true (lack of evidence) and then uses it to make an implication that can't be proven. If you're going to go there ... there's nothing that leads us to believe that God even exists.

It's not a lack of evidence. It's the fact that all evidence leads us to believe that the universe needs a cause, because everything we encounter inside the universe needs a cause. If all people I meet have a head, then it's safe to conclude that all people have a head.

My own statements about the fact we can't say the universe needed a cause outside itself is not wishful thinking. It's simply an admission of the truth that we don't know. (My own wishful thinking would be that there were a simple and verifiable answer. Either way, it wouldn't matter to me.)

you're ignoring all the stuff we know about cause and result.

Certainly the statements shouldn't be meant literally, as the functionality of God and the universe could obviously be different, and neither necessarily would be part of the causal process of the other. Such a statement is almost surely not meant in that literal way though. The statements in regards to what allowances are being made for each option could be a valid way to point out the hypocrisy of someone claiming one needs a cause while the other doesn't.

Why would that be a hypocrisy?
The fact that my daughter needs help to walk doesn't mean that I need help to walk.
Wait, now that's a hypocrite claim to make, why would one need help to walk while the other doesn't?

The entire concept of something existing entirely in itself without any external causation is something I can't grasp. All logic I have in my mind always comes to the same conclusion that the existence of our system can only be explained from something that's not a part of our system. Of course the existence of God also puzzles me and goes way beyond my grasp. And perhaps God also needs a cause, or perhaps God is so different then the system I know, that it doesn't need a cause. It doesn't matter. What I do know is that with our current knowledge we need something outside of our system to explain the existence of our system. That doesn't lead us to God or god or gods or whatever. It just leads to the conclusion that there must be something beyond the limits of our knowledge.

That has nothing to do with hypocrisy it's a simple product of my analyses of the existence of our system.
In fact I'm completely ignoring the question of the cause of our cause. it's irrelevant to me. I can't come to any conclusion except for 'we need a cause'. And the response that 'then our cause also needs a cause' is so simplistic and stupid that I'm actually embarrassed that bright people dare to say it. (which again proves that even the brightest people aren't always led by ratio but also by wishful thinking, which isn't weird at all btw)

They are essentially the same question. ("Is the analogy proper" and "did it help illustrate the point") The value in the analogy is to illustrate a point. If your analogy doesn't make the point you want it to, or not very clearly, or makes points you didn't mean it to, then it's not very good. If the analogs you draw don't hold up under scrutiny, it's definitely worse than if they do. Not just because of the value of the analog in and of itself, but because the analogs you choose make implications of their own.

blablabla
My analogy makes perfectly clear what it is supposed to make clear, namely that it's silly to assume that the cause in any case must leave up to the same laws/rules/properties/etc. as the thing it produces.

Now you've chatted enough about the analogy, just simply answer the question: do you believe that the cause always needs to live up to the same rules/laws/properties/etc. as the thing it produces?

(and to make things even worse, my analogy was that a totally red product doesn't necessarily have to come from a totally red factory. the analogy was made to explain the cause thing, but the cause thing itself wasn't in the analogy)

**Robert** · September 2, 2012, 09:15

No, it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't believe in miracles, and I find your blind faith in things you have no confirmation of to be something I cannot in any way relate to. I think we should just accept we have literally zero common ground here and move on, because otherwise we'll just end up insulting each other.

it's a bit unfair to say that our faith is blind faith.
As if scientific evidence is the only way to trust others?
I'd say the opposite, most probably 99,99% of the things we do, know, say, believe, trust, etc. aren't founded by scientific evidence.
And I wouldn't say that you nor me are living a blind life based on quicksand.

But if someone has faith in God, then suddenly it's blind faith?
I have very good reasons to trust God and have faith in him.

I would say it's a bit silly to insist that you will only accept the answer to the most important question of our life on scientific proof, and that you're indifferent as long as there's no scientific certainty.

Of course you have an opinion and an answer to the most important question of life. Apparently that is that life has no specific purpose and you live it once. There's no scientific evidence to backup your answer, yet you believe it. Because you have though it over and you have good reasons to make that conclusion. It's not a blind decision you made.

Yet apparently a christian can only have blind faith in God, while an agnost or an atheist has a well founded view on life.

**Jon Miller** · September 2, 2012, 10:06

I agree that my faith is anything but blind.

JM

**giblets** · September 2, 2012, 10:10

Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

Sometimes data can lead us to make wrong conclussions too about other things as it may change our world view. Yes, we have been wrong when we have used common sense in the past. Does that mean we shouldn't use it? Of course not. Because common sense tells us that common sense is good.

Experience tells us that common sense is a pathological liar.

**kentonio** · September 2, 2012, 11:01