Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 11:56 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  



(24-03-2016 05:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Yeah I know that, I'm an agnostic atheist if you want to use the labels and never really have been otherwise. I'm also partial to excessive skepticism like you but it doesn't mean it leads to the same types of conclusions vs some arguments.

My contrast is just that whether its based on presumed understanding of the contrast from people or not, the distinction lines of what is personally experienced vs gathered from data whatever you call it...) is actually a significant difference. It may be concluded as so. I don't however have a real acceptance that person experience is a more trustworthy element nor is it really ever "personal" to a tight degree.
I see where you might have misunderstood me.
I do not place value to being in direct sensory perception of a thing, over, being in direct sensory perception of a "reference to a thing".
I am making the claim that in both instances direct sensory perception is a pre-requisite for rational belief.
Therefore the root cause of all rational belief is not things like popularity, credibility, education, logic, etc.

The root cause for rational belief is sensory perception of any and all types of evidence followed by the logic which stems from examining the evidence, which branches into belief systems that eventually bare fruit to world views.

It's sounds like a beautiful tree if ever you saw it.

There is a reason why I am still an Agnostic Atheist. It's because I have no sensory perception of any evidence for the existence of God. Without it all the claimed evidence, logic & religious beliefs are nothing more than a story about something that may or may not be possible.

That being said I do not rule out the possibility that others have had some sort of sensory perception to evidence of the existence of God, but thus far no one has been able to reproduce it for my sensory perception to perceive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 05:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All colors are subject to perception. This is why I say they are subjective. [...]
Nope. A prism spectrometer will give you a precise wavelength determination every time. You're also confusing human perception—which, unless you're colour blind—exhibits virtually no variation from one individual to another. This has been tested multiple times: "Subjects were asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be". [Williams, Hofer et al, 2006]

You really need to move on from this silly objective/subjective nonsense.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
25-03-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 01:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The root cause for rational belief is sensory perception of any and all types of evidence followed by the logic which stems from examining the evidence, which branches into belief systems that eventually bare fruit to world views [...]

You have zero perception of a gravitational field, but obviously you acknowledge it exists. Human sensory perception is usually defined along the lines of touch, sight, hearing, and smell. Gravity or its variances can't be detected by humans using any of those means, so how can you claim a rational belief in its existence?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
25-03-2016, 03:02 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 02:14 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 05:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All colors are subject to perception. This is why I say they are subjective. [...]
Nope. A prism spectrometer will give you a precise wavelength determination every time. You're also confusing human perception—which, unless you're colour blind—exhibits virtually no variation from one individual to another. This has been tested multiple times: "Subjects were asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be". [Williams, Hofer et al, 2006]

You really need to move on from this silly objective/subjective nonsense.
A wavelength determination is not a color. It is a part of the process whereby we see color, which when combined with the eye's ability to see gives us a color. The definition of a color (from wiki) specifies a two part process for color to be identified. Wavelength and & an observing Eye.
Why do you guys keep leaving out the fact that we need an observing eye to identify a color and continuously state only the wave length is required to determine the color? This is not what wiki says nor science.
Can you make the statement blue is blue no matter what color you see?
A color blind person will not see the same color as a person without color blindness.
If you argue that they are seeing the wrong color then I will ask "what makes you think that?"
I hope the resulting answers are not centered on popularity, normality or an incomplete definition of what a color is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 03:17 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 05:31 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Perfect example of how unsound premises render further consideration masturbatory.
Yes.
The formula I used was wrong.
Why point out that being wrong leads to misinterpretation though?
Isn't that a bit obvious?

Because I'm not at all sure you understand or appreciate the difference between soundness and validity.

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
25-03-2016, 04:30 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 03:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A wavelength determination is not a color.
Yes it is. A specific wavelength on the colour spectrum delineates absolutely what that colour is. Visible light corresponds to a wavelength range of approximately 400nm to 700nm and is visible to the human eye. Yellow light has a wavelength of 570nm, green light has a wavelength of 510nm, and red light has a wavelength of 650nm etc. On healthy human retinas, you and I will both perceive an electromagnetic radiation of 570 nanometres (or 0.00000057 metres) as what we've arbitrarily chosen to call a "yellow" light. There is nothing "subjective" about it. And we do not need an "observing eye" to identify a colour.

Quote:A color blind person will not see the same color as a person without color blindness.
This is correct. But when discussing colour perception, it's assumed that the subject's eyes are functionally healthy. If not, and you hit their eyes with a wavelength of (say) 570nm, they may erroneously interpret it as (say) 445nm; or indigo instead of yellow. But this has nothing at all to do with any subjectivity.

At any rate, I think you're spending too much time confusing these issues with semantics irrelevant to the debate.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
25-03-2016, 04:47 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 04:30 PM)SYZ Wrote:  On healthy human retinas, you and I will both perceive an electromagnetic radiation of 570 nanometres (or 0.00000057 metres) as what we've arbitrarily chosen to call a "yellow" light. There is nothing "subjective" about it. And we do not need an "observing eye" to identify a colour.

Shane is talking about, in a vague and poorly-communicated way, the idea of qualia, the inherently subjective parts of sensory experience. "The redness of red" is generally the go-to example of a quale whenever someone asks.

Of course, the fact that qualia are a poorly-defined, incoherent concept with absolutely zero supporting evidence to suggest that anything of the kind exists* doesn't concern him in the least, even assuming that he is aware of it.

*: Integrated information theory, a field of theoretical and as-yet-unproven but highly intriguing study into computational consciousness, has advanced a possible technical definition and means of quantifying qualia. While endlessly fascinating, this is also one of the more contentious points of the theory, and even if it were proven true, would not help Shane's case. Within integrated information theory, qualia are explicitly quantifiable, and not subjective. This, among other, more technical differences, means that the term "qualia" as used within integrated information theory - a scientific field - is not analogous to the term as advanced in most philosophical discussions.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
25-03-2016, 04:53 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 03:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A wavelength determination is not a color. It is a part of the process whereby we see color, which when combined with the eye's ability to see gives us a color. The definition of a color (from wiki) specifies a two part process for color to be identified. Wavelength and & an observing Eye.

Nope. The wavelengths in a range are, by definition, THAT color. It's STILL THERE, even when perceived by someone who is color blind. The perceiving does not "make" it blue.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2016, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 08:21 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 04:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 03:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A wavelength determination is not a color. It is a part of the process whereby we see color, which when combined with the eye's ability to see gives us a color. The definition of a color (from wiki) specifies a two part process for color to be identified. Wavelength and & an observing Eye.

Nope. The wavelengths in a range are, by definition, THAT color. It's STILL THERE, even when perceived by someone who is color blind. The perceiving does not "make" it blue.
I am not saying that the wavelength isn't there my friend nor that it cannot be objectively defined.
I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.
It can however be objectively defined as a wavelength because the type of wavelength does not change based on perception.

Example:
Take a normal man & yourself. (No pun intended on both levels)
Now give him a different retina to see the wavelength of blue as green and purple as blue.
Now show him blue and ask him what color is it. He will say green.
What has changed about the wavelength before it reaches his eye? Nothing right?
Is the color green or blue? If you say it is blue even though he sees green then how can you prove this?
Are you going to show him a color chart that says this wavelength is the color blue and claim that as proof?
This would mean that a book telling you something is true is evidence that it is true. This is not evidence.
Are you going to say because the majority of people believe it is blue? This is not evidence & if it were then Christians would claim they have the most rational belief.
So again I ask how are you going to prove to him that the color isn't green even though he knows it doesn't look like blue?
Show him the color formerly known as purple and tell him that is really purple even though he sees it as blue, and continue telling him that what he sees as green is really blue.
How are ever going to prove to him what you say is true?
What if he tells you that if you cannot provide any evidence that green is really blue and blue is really purple that you believe in fairy tails?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 04:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. The wavelengths in a range are, by definition, THAT color. It's STILL THERE, even when perceived by someone who is color blind. The perceiving does not "make" it blue.
I am not saying that the wavelength isn't there my friend nor that it cannot be objectively defined.
I am saying that it cannot be objectively defined as a specific color because the type of color can change based on perception even if the wavelength does not change.
It can however be objectively defined as a wavelength because the type of wavelength does not change based on perception.

Example:
Take a normal man & yourself.
Now give him a different retina to see the wavelength of blue as green and purple as blue.
Now show him blue and ask him what color is it. He will say green.
What has changed about the wavelength before it reaches his eye? Nothing right?
Is the color green or blue? If you say it is blue even though he sees green then how can you prove this?
Are you going to show him a color chart that says this wavelength is the color blue and claim that as proof?
This would mean that a book telling you something is true is evidence that it is true. This is not evidence.
So again I ask how are you going to prove to him that the color isn't green even though he knows it doesn't look like blue?
Show him the color formerly known as purple and tell him that is really purple even though he sees it as blue, and continue telling him that what he sees as green is really blue.
How are ever going to prove to him what you say is true?
What if he tells you that if you cannot provide any evidence that green is really blue and blue is really purple that you believe in fairy tails?

Bullshit. I will assemble a statistically significant cohort of retinas, and ask them what they see, and sort out the outliers, and create a Bell curve of observations, just like any eye specialist would do. They will fall into a normal distribution. You're so wound up in your bullshit, you can't *see* straight. Oh look. I made a little funny there. Some day, maybe you'll actually learn how science works.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: