From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Apr 23 19:16:08 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 24 Apr 2003 02:16:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 9182 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2003 02:16:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2003 02:16:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2003 02:16:08 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 198WHP-0002eG-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:16:07 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198WHI-0002dx-00; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:16:00 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198WHA-0002do-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:15:52 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3O2RBsr057433 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:27:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h3O2RBK6057432 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:27:11 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:27:11 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [OT] God Syndrome (OR: The why of 'why') Message-ID: <20030424022711.GA56983@allusion.net> References: <20030423033114.GA48759@allusion.net> <20030424014720.22517.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="envbJBWh7q8WU6mo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030424014720.22517.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4922 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 06:47:20PM -0700, Jon MacLeod wrote: > > At first I thought you were basically asking "What is the cause of > > z". > >=20 > > Your wording is ambiguous; it would be better to say "what causes > > z to cause [the event]?". > >=20 > > First thing; get people out of this. People have nothing to do > > with anything; just confuses things. You only need two things then: > > event x and cause z. And the question "What causes z to cause x". >=20 > The question 'What causes z to cause x' is not the same question as 'why= does > x do y for reason z', because we are not asking what the cause is for z t= o come > about. Also, it impossible to get people out of this, because it is the p= eople > that are causing the problem of understanding. Ok, so I guess my wording has the same abiguitity that yours does. I understand what you meant though. What you are asking is not what causes z, but why it is that z is *able* to cause x. > > I understand why you think the question still exists if you have a > > framework for explaining the cause of the cause. E.g. if say > > mechanics is the cause of the cause, you still can ask why does > > that cause the cause to cause what it caused (err). But obviously > > the science of mechanics didn't cause anything---it's merely an > > attempt to determine what is determinable about it. > >=20 > > So my answer is na'i: (i) You can keep going out levels: if you > > could somehow discover what the cause is here, you have to ask, > > "why is that the cause" (or better worded "what caused that to be > > the cause"). It has to either stop somewhere, or be infinite---either > > way it's broken, because if it is infinite, then the answer to your > > original question is useless, because you have the same question > > all over again, and if it isn't infinite, it stops at some value > > for z with your question still askable, but unanswerable, and (ii) > > you can't discover it anyway, so this is a useless (xod would say > > "meaningless", I'm sure :) ) thing to discuss. >=20 > I agree with you on this except for one thing: the 'why' and the 'z' are= two > different things, and the answer to the 'why' cannot be put into the 'z' > anymore than the 'x' can be put into the 'y': a person is not an action. But I cut the person out of the picture. People aren't actions, but a person commiting an action is an event. The event is more generic, and lets you get to your issue without getting sidetracked into unrelated discussions about psychology---people only confuse things. The 'why' most certainly can be put into the z again. If there is a reason that z causes x, then there (obviously) either may or may not be a reason that that reason causes z to cause x, and the process continues iteratively. Either you eventually reach a reason for the a cause being able to cause for which the question cannot be answered, or you don't. Either way you have the problems I outlined above which make the entire question a worthless problem to persue. > > I would also say that I don't see how concept of cause is in any > > way harmed by this, so I don't understand why you think there > > shouldn't be words for it or whatever it is.... > >=20 > > [...] > > > Why did I call this 'God Syndrome'? Because I think that every relig= ion, > > > including atheism, has tried, and failed, to explain what the 'why' i= s, and > > > instead attribute the 'why' to God. > >=20 > > Atheism attributes something to "god"? Heh. > >=20 > > > (I am not saying God does not exist- I > > > personally believe there is absolute proof that at least one Diety ex= ists. > > I am > > > saying that the 'why' is equated with God in religion, where the two = are > > not, > > > in actuality, the same thing.) > > [...] > >=20 > > Heh. > >=20 > > I've met a lot of people who say they can prove that "God" exists. > > Most of them end up spitting out a "proof" which is already well > > known and also quite broken, and furthermore leaves the nature of > > the question in doubt by failing to adequately define what they > > mean when they say "God". Some are original though, for example > > the best one I've heard is the "proof" that Jesus spelled backwards > > sounds like Sausage, and that that just *can't* be a coincidence. > >=20 > > Anyway, I'd like to hear you try, if you will. First, though, I'd > > ask you to define "Deity", before you "prove" that one exists. >=20 > My proof that God exists is based on the mathematic probability of intel= ligent > life existing in the universe, but it proof to me that God exists, and I = am not > trying to prove to others there is a God. You can believe what you want t= o > belikeve, I refuse to push my beliefs onto others. .u'icai A proof is a proof: assuming it were valid, it would have to be accepted. The word implies it is something that you believe other people *must* accept (assuming they are rational), so you cannot simultaneously say "I can prove God" and "I am not trying to prove to others that there is a God" and have it make much sense. What you've actually stated is just your means of justifying an irrational belief in an invisible man[1] for yourself, it is not a proof (neither to you nor to anyone else). [1] Maybe it's not an invisible man for you, but you'll have to forgive me for assuming the standard meaning of the word since you neglected to provide your definition (as I requested in expectation of precisely this). --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+p0t/DrrilS51AZ8RAqJVAKCmg7/2LvagE7iGVOlrkaxB9loa4ACdFV2j Xx9tsiN3OkNt7shyj0QZ5CI= =c9tO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--