Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 04:44 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 05:28 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 02:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 05:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All colors are subject to perception. This is why I say they are subjective.
It's in the definition I posted from wiki.

This is all I'm saying. I'm not arguing that colors don't exist, I'm simply saying that they are subjective in nature and therefore not an objectively true thing.

If you are arguing on behalf of colors being objectively true then I will object.
If you are not arguing that colors are objectively true then I cannot argue back.

And we got to this point because you seem to think that doesn't hold throw for other objects maintained and visualized through wavelengths and material forms.

At least that's the way you formulated questions upon. As if there is a real contrast to the position.

So lemme think it out this way, what is different about the presumed "seeing" of the pyramid of giza "in person" vs "seeing" it not "in person?"
Sensory perception of "An actual thing" vs sensory perception of a "reference to an actual thing?"
Seeing it in person requires sensory perception of what is generally assumed to be "the actual thing"
Seeing it "not in person" requires sensory perception of what is generally assumed to be "a reference to the actual thing"

I think I get where you are going with this.
Sensory perception is not the determining factor for rational belief. Correct?
In both instances sensory perception has to be used to formulate a belief. Correct?
The only difference lies in the type of evidence we are observing. Correct?

Rational Belief in the seen (in person) requires emperical evidence of a presumed actual thing
Rational Belief in the seen (not in person) requires emperical evidence of a reference to a presumed actual thing.

Therefore what makes a belief rational vs irrational between the Pyramids of Egypt & God isn't sensory perception.

If there is a difference, it is based on the presumption of one being an "actual thing" vs the other being a "reference to an actual thing". Correct?
This would now bring me to an unusable formula as for as objective reality is concerned but a very usable formula for a subjective result.

Let's look at the belief in God's existence as a topic of rational or irational belief then.
If the only difference in a rational belief vs an irational belief is based on the presumption in question then we need to examine which presumption is more rational. Correct?

So what makes a belief that God exists more rational than a belief the God does not exist?
This is as far as my logic will take me.
To proceed further I need to know what is the presumption behind the belief that God exists vs the presumption behind the belief that God does not exist.
Being Agnostic I don't have any presumptions about God. I need an Atheist & a Theist to step in right about now, or you could just state a generally accepted Theistic/Atheistic presumption for me to examine the logic.

P.S. I think the acceptance of a claim that something does not exist qualifies as a belief based on the definition of belief.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Question:
Do you accept that the statement "God exists" is true?
Do you accept that the statement "God does not exist" is true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 04:44 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Question:
Do you accept that the statement "God exists" is true?
Do you accept that the statement "God does not exist" is true?

Oh goody, back to this argument again. Round and round we go. *yawn*

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 07:49 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 07:42 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 04:44 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Question:
Do you accept that the statement "God exists" is true?
Do you accept that the statement "God does not exist" is true?

Oh goody, back to this argument again. Round and round we go. *yawn*
They are questions.
Questions aren't arguments.
You are preluding the argument. It will soon come but have some patience in the meantime.

Score count for non explanatory answers:
10 points: Whiskey Debates
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:58 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 07:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:52 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not sure I can help since you fail to even mention the requirement that the premises are obvious, self-evident and indisputable. Unsound premises make further consideration masturbatory.
Oops sorry.

From Google:
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

Sqrt -1 = infinite
Infinite = assumptional belief
Assumptional belief = irational

The square root of -1 is not infinite.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 08:12 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Oops sorry.

From Google:
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

Sqrt -1 = infinite
Infinite = assumptional belief
Assumptional belief = irational

The square root of -1 is not infinite.
My apologies:
square root(-1) = i
The imaginary number "i" is the square root of negative one. An imaginary number possesses the unique property that when squared, the result is negative. Consider: The process of simplifying a radical containing a negative factor is the same as normal radical simplification.

Thank you for the correction although absent a proper explanation.
http://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra1/Rad...Under.html

Sqrt -1 = imaginary number = assumption = irational if believed (accepted as true)

Score count for non explanatory answers:
10 points: WhiskeyDebates
10 points: Chas
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 08:27 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 08:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  The square root of -1 is not infinite.
My apologies:
square root(-1) = i
The imaginary number "i" is the square root of negative one. An imaginary number possesses the unique property that when squared, the result is negative. Consider: The process of simplifying a radical containing a negative factor is the same as normal radical simplification.

Thank you for the correction although absent a proper explanation.
http://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra1/Rad...Under.html

Sqrt -1 = imaginary number = assumption = irational if believed (accepted as true)

Score count for non explanatory answers:
10 points: WhiskeyDebates
10 points: Chas

It was not an answer to any question, it was a correction to your error.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 04:44 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And we got to this point because you seem to think that doesn't hold throw for other objects maintained and visualized through wavelengths and material forms.

At least that's the way you formulated questions upon. As if there is a real contrast to the position.

So lemme think it out this way, what is different about the presumed "seeing" of the pyramid of giza "in person" vs "seeing" it not "in person?"
Sensory perception of "An actual thing" vs sensory perception of a "reference to an actual thing?"
Seeing it in person requires sensory perception of what is generally assumed to be "the actual thing"
Seeing it "not in person" requires sensory perception of what is generally assumed to be "a reference to the actual thing"

I think I get where you are going with this.
Sensory perception is not the determining factor for rational belief. Correct?
In both instances sensory perception has to be used to formulate a belief. Correct?
The only difference lies in the type of evidence we are observing. Correct?

Rational Belief in the seen (in person) requires emperical evidence of a presumed actual thing
Rational Belief in the seen (not in person) requires emperical evidence of a reference to a presumed actual thing.

Therefore what makes a belief rational vs irrational between the Pyramids of Egypt & God isn't sensory perception.

If there is a difference, it is based on the presumption of one being an "actual thing" vs the other being a "reference to an actual thing". Correct?
This would now bring me to an unusable formula as for as objective reality is concerned but a very usable formula for a subjective result.

Let's look at the belief in God's existence as a topic of rational or irational belief then.
If the only difference in a rational belief vs an irational belief is based on the presumption in question then we need to examine which presumption is more rational. Correct?

So what makes a belief that God exists more rational than a belief the God does not exist?
This is as far as my logic will take me.
To proceed further I need to know what is the presumption behind the belief that God exists vs the presumption behind the belief that God does not exist.
Being Agnostic I don't have any presumptions about God. I need an Atheist & a Theist to step in right about now, or you could just state a generally accepted Theistic/Atheistic presumption for me to examine the logic.

P.S. I think the acceptance of a claim that something does not exist qualifies as a belief based on the definition of belief.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Question:
Do you accept that the statement "God exists" is true?
Do you accept that the statement "God does not exist" is true?

I don't accept either of those statements at the end.

I'm really at a loss from where your focus or mental thought on this point is going on right now. Really there was only one statement in that whole post that I felt reflected on what I had been saying. I guess cause I'm not interested in "generally assumed" positions and would rather cut to beyond that. Not bothering with any general view questions.

I suppose I still see just as much possible/potential interference in labeling the giant pyramid you standing 20 feet from you seeing the actual thing in contrast to seeing a picture of it on your laptop... as far as when we are talking about in a high certainty range.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 10:05 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I wish you were telling me where I went wrong, but that isn't what you are doing.

Well, no. Not any more. Because, you see, I did, multiple times. And, upon my doing this, you responded by demonstrating quite handily that you lack the reading comprehension necessary to understand basic English even if you weren't an arrogant fool who is more concerned with playing pointless games than actually holding a discussion.

So... no. I am not bothering to try and explain it a third time. You aren't worth the effort, and anyone who actually cares about the answer can find it less than three pages back. As it is in exceptionally simple English, and is actually a full explanation (to which you yourself responded with your own "point-and-look" idiocy), I doubt that anyone needs to be walked through it again. Even if I had simply posted a link, I would not feel particularly inclined to walk you through it.

You are not a six-year-old, Shane. Stop acting like a toddler who refuses to use the toilet unless Mommy holds your hand.

Anyone who was going to learn anything from my responses already has. All that's left to do now is reiterate the fact that you are wrong, because you have pissed away any goodwill that might have led the other posters here to do anything else.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
24-03-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 07:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Sqrt -1 = infinite
Infinite = assumptional belief
Assumptional belief = irational

Perfect example of how unsound premises render further consideration masturbatory.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-03-2016, 05:27 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 09:14 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 04:44 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Sensory perception of "An actual thing" vs sensory perception of a "reference to an actual thing?"
Seeing it in person requires sensory perception of what is generally assumed to be "the actual thing"
Seeing it "not in person" requires sensory perception of what is generally assumed to be "a reference to the actual thing"

I think I get where you are going with this.
Sensory perception is not the determining factor for rational belief. Correct?
In both instances sensory perception has to be used to formulate a belief. Correct?
The only difference lies in the type of evidence we are observing. Correct?

Rational Belief in the seen (in person) requires emperical evidence of a presumed actual thing
Rational Belief in the seen (not in person) requires emperical evidence of a reference to a presumed actual thing.

Therefore what makes a belief rational vs irrational between the Pyramids of Egypt & God isn't sensory perception.

If there is a difference, it is based on the presumption of one being an "actual thing" vs the other being a "reference to an actual thing". Correct?
This would now bring me to an unusable formula as for as objective reality is concerned but a very usable formula for a subjective result.

Let's look at the belief in God's existence as a topic of rational or irational belief then.
If the only difference in a rational belief vs an irational belief is based on the presumption in question then we need to examine which presumption is more rational. Correct?

So what makes a belief that God exists more rational than a belief the God does not exist?
This is as far as my logic will take me.
To proceed further I need to know what is the presumption behind the belief that God exists vs the presumption behind the belief that God does not exist.
Being Agnostic I don't have any presumptions about God. I need an Atheist & a Theist to step in right about now, or you could just state a generally accepted Theistic/Atheistic presumption for me to examine the logic.

P.S. I think the acceptance of a claim that something does not exist qualifies as a belief based on the definition of belief.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Question:
Do you accept that the statement "God exists" is true?
Do you accept that the statement "God does not exist" is true?

I don't accept either of those statements at the end.

I'm really at a loss from where your focus or mental thought on this point is going on right now. Really there was only one statement in that whole post that I felt reflected on what I had been saying. I guess cause I'm not interested in "generally assumed" positions and would rather cut to beyond that. Not bothering with any general view questions.

I suppose I still see just as much possible/potential interference in labeling the giant pyramid you standing 20 feet from you seeing the actual thing in contrast to seeing a picture of it on your laptop... as far as when we are talking about in a high certainty range.
Then you are Agnostic same as me. It's really hard trying to explain something to someone that already shares your opinion about God. You will end up agreeing with me in the end even though we did not use the same logic to arrive at our opinion.
Still... if you see any flaws in my logic I would be very thankful for you to point them out for me please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: