Honestly.....hell no I can’t grasp the fact of one dimension. But I don’t have any problem grasping the concept of one; the problem comes with assigning an object to it. It’s easy to say...a point in space exists necessarily because lines are a succession of points and lines in space are possible. But from conceiving a point to giving the conditions necessary for a point’s reality as an object, is impossible. Same for infinite gravity. It’s easy to think all the gravity there could ever be, but trying to do any more with the conception than that, gets you all mixed up in illusions and contradictions.

I for one am not going to commit to thinking science is eventually going to discover the cause of the Universe. I’m more inclined to think there are some things humans are just plain not equipped to learn.

↪Rank Amateur

Honestly.....hell no I can’t grasp the fact of one dimension. But I don’t have any problem grasping the concept of one; the problem comes with assigning an object to it. It’s easy to say...a point in space exists necessarily because lines are a succession of points and lines in space are possible. But from conceiving a point to giving the conditions necessary for a point’s reality as an object, is impossible. Same for infinite gravity. It’s easy to think all the gravity there could ever be, but trying to do any more with the conception than that, gets you all mixed up in illusions and contradictions. — Mww

Small point, pun not intended, points only exist in 2 dimensions. The only thing we can now say exists in one dimension is time.

I for one am not going to commit to thinking science is eventually going to discover the cause of the Universe. I’m more inclined to think there are some things humans are just plain not equipped to learn. — Mww

I have no issue with that at all.

For the record, here is what I said earlier:

If you believe anything beyond what's probable, then that's faith. But if you can't help it because of the circumstances, then importantly, that's different to a conscious decision to have faith regardless. The one is unreasonable through habit, not our fault, we can't help it. The other is unreasonable through choice, our fault, we can do otherwise. — S

I don't have faith in any relevant sense here. I only have unconscious expectations for which I can't be held responsible. I can't help it if I slip into thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Rank Amateur just throws around false equivalencies like there's no tomorrow and has a selective memory.

only issue I have with that is, is just probable enough to eliminate it being faith. In that sky diving example, if the probability of the chute opening was .51, would you jump because it was probable it would open, if it was .99 would you? Where exactly between those two does reason end and faith begin?

Kind of why I like faith is where a 100% commitment is required, like jumping out of the plane, where the actual outcome is a matter of some probability.

So, putting it in our discussion, if one wants to commit to it that 100% that God is not, while the current state of affairs is there is some unknown probability that either God is or God is not, part of your belief is based on faith.

Only issue I have with that is, is just probable enough to eliminate it being faith. In that sky diving example, if the probability of the chute opening was .51, would you jump because it was probable it would open, if it was .99 would you? Where exactly between those two does reason end and faith begin?

Kind of why I like faith is where a 100% commitment is required, like jumping out of the plane, where the actual outcome is a matter of some probability.

So, putting it in our discussion, if one wants to commit to it that 100% that God is not, while the current state of affairs is there is some unknown probability that either God is or God is not, part of your belief is based on faith. — Rank Amateur

You're looking for an easy target, and I am not one. I wouldn't consciously commit 100% to anything whatsoever, unless I thought that it was 100% certain. That's not the case with regards to anything that you've confronted me with, so you can't rightly accuse me of having faith.

You're looking for an easy target, and I am not one. I wouldn't consciously commit 100% to anything whatsoever, unless I thought that it was 100% certain. That's not the case with regards to anything that you've confronted me with, so you can't rightly accuse me of having faith. — S

So, would it be fair to say then, that you believe there is some chance, there is such a thing as God?

What....can’t a point be thought of as located on any one axis of a Cartesian system? Only a geometric figure requires two dimensions; lines and points can be conceived as having but one, because if you spin a line as if you were looking at it end-on it shouldn’t just disappear, so you could think of it as seeing a point. Conceptually speaking.

Time has no dimension at all. It may be considered *AS* a dimension, a condition for referencing spatial locality in conjunction with relative motion. Then there’s always the metaphysical time.......pretty much just as contentious as politics and religion.

So, would it be fair to say then, that you believe there is some chance, there is such a thing as God? — Rank Amateur

By the definition in your argument - a supernatural entity or being - sure. Unless I become aware of a contradiction, I will think that there's a chance, however slim, as per logical possibility. It's also possible that unicorns and goblins and space tea pots actually exist, provided we don't rule that out by defining them as fictional. Possibilities and remote probabilities are trivial in this context.

This is basic shit. I'm not unreasonable. I've never been a strong atheist, except where there's a contradiction ruling out the existence of God.

I spelled it out. They have different premises. One argument proceeds from the premise that there are human experiences to the conclusion that there is a universe. The other proceeds from the premise that there is a universe to the conclusion of God. Do you, or do you not, recognize that this is a "logical difference"? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not a logical difference. Logically, both are simply that x implies the necessity of y.

What....can’t a point be thought of as located on any one axis of a Cartesian system? Only a geometric figure requires two dimensions; lines and points can be conceived as having but one, because if you spin a line as if you were looking at it end-on it shouldn’t just disappear, so you could think of it as seeing a point. Conceptually speaking. — Mww

No, sorry each and every point is, by definition, a point in space described by a x and y coordinate. All the points on the x axis, have x= to something and y = 0. With the 0 only meaning no change along the y axis, in relation to wherever we decided to say 0 was.

The formula for a line is y=max+b, Same thing goes as above all lines have an x and y value.

By the definition in your argument - a supernatural entity or being - sure. Unless I become aware of a contradiction, I will think that there's a chance, however slim, as per logical possibility. It's also possible that unicorns and goblins and space tea pots actually exist, provided we don't rule that out by defining them as fictional. Possibilities and remote probabilities are trivial in this context.

This is basic shit. I'm not unreasonable. I've never been a strong atheist, except where there's a contradiction ruling out the existence of God. — S

Close enough- good with that.

So what’s the difference between this and any other dialogue with opposing views? Do you see you’re working from a location in space where a point can be found, but I’m working from a conceivable description of what a point is? No need to be sorry.

yea exactly, a point is just a location in at least a 2 demensional space. A point has no size. A line has size in one dimension l, in a at least two dimensional world from infinite to some l between 2 points on that line

Close enough- good with that. — Rank Amateur

So, you accept that there's no faith in such a position, and you're going to stop saying otherwise? If not, where oh where is this illusive faith of which you speak?

If you say, God is. That is a faith based position, if you say God is not, that is a faith based position, If you say maybe either way, it is not a faith based position. Your last was you prefer, probably very strongly prefer the God is not, but allow the possibility God is, that is a maybe, and not faith based.

If you say, God is. That is a faith based position, if you say God is not, that is a faith based position, If you say maybe either way, it is not a faith based position. Your last was you prefer, probably very strongly prefer the God is not, but allow the possibility God is, that is a maybe, and not faith based. — Rank Amateur

So, hence forward, you're going to rephrase your claim to make it clear that your equivalence is only between strong atheism and theism, yes?

That's not a logical difference. Logically, both are simply that x implies the necessity of y. — Terrapin Station

One big problem here Terrapin, they're not both x implies y. One is x implies y, the other is y implies z Do you know about the law of identity, a principle of logic? There is a logical difference between two distinct things.

No. It's not a logical difference to plug different elements into variables.

Different elements are logically different, by the law of identity.

:rofl:

Jesus Christ. They're the same in the relevant sense. They have the same logical form. Antecedent, material implication, consequent. P→Q.

The 'P' and the 'Q' are variables, so they can be replaced with anything that fits. 'x implies y' & 'y implies z' are the same in this way.

If they're not self-evident, and if no justification has been provided, then there's no more reason to accept that 'a universe implies God' than to accept that 'experience implies a universe'.

I think that that's all that's being said. You two just aren't communicating with each other well enough.

Metaphysician Undercover has referred to the cosmological argument as a justification. Although, if he was trying to clarify for AJJ, it's specifically the Kalam cosmological argument. So maybe move on to that?

I can live with that.

What other problems can we solve? Red pill, blue pill?

every time you acknowledge the possibility of the counter position

every time you acknowledge the possibility of the counter position — Rank Amateur

Eh? But why would you think otherwise? Nothing's impossible unless there's a contradiction. Why would you assume that I thought that it would be impossible, as opposed to lacking sufficient evidence, as I'm frequently saying in these discussions. The former is a really strong claim.

That's uncharitable of you, I think. Strong atheism is the weaker position in a lot of cases, including the one under discussion, so you shouldn't assume it by default. Should I assume that you're a Biblical Literalist until you say otherwise? Question you about whether the world was created in seven days?

you spent 3 days fighting it wasn't even reasonable, never mind a real possibility

you spent 3 days fighting it wasn't even reasonable, never mind a real possibility — Rank Amateur

It isn't reasonable, to the best of my knowledge, but I've not once denied that it's a possibility (adding "real" doesn't do anything, except mislead, given that it's more fantastical than realistic), except in the case of your argument when I believed there to be a contradiction! This has come entirely from you the whole time. If you've been reading things into my position, that isn't my fault.

The objective meaning of one's life is their own life.

.

How is it subjective?

.

Different elements are logically different, by the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Haha, no. How could you even do logic with variables then?