Originally Posted by RememberTwce

I kind of want to flag this for fun... But I feel bad for you that it keeps happening to you. You must feel like Rakim right now, getting flagged all over the place.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I don't know, I'm not religious. It does seem like the religious believe that God's 'doings' are tangible, though. As an analogue, electric fields are not 'tangible' in the sense that you're describing them. However, their effects most definitely are, and thus we analyse them 'physically', to use icecream's terms.

Electric fields are used to understand a phenomenon of this universe. In other words, without any universe there is no electric fields concept.

But without universe, there is still God. That's a core monotheistic belief that God was before the Universe or Multi-verses. God is not physical.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I don't know, I'm not religious. It does seem like the religious believe that God's 'doings' are tangible, though. As an analogue, electric fields are not 'tangible' in the sense that you're describing them. However, their effects most definitely are, and thus we analyse them 'physically', to use icecream's terms.

I see your point, what one considers physical would have to be defined. Anywho, my main concern is the effect on Pakistan. The US is essentially rubbing it in Pakistans face and are questioning the skills of the ISI. The US is making a crucial mistake and if its ties with Pakistan crumble it, the rising instability and the fact that Pakistan has a decent military is a reason of concern for me.

Originally Posted by Icecream

Everything verifiable which is made of atoms is sensible.

This is quite true, but your argument is a variant of the 'fallacy of affirming the consequent'. Sensibility is a necessary condition for verifiability, and you're inferring verifiability from sensibility.

If you went to a Planet, which has habitants who can't calculate but they speak the same language, telling them 5+5=10 won't make them understand.

But If you show them by arranging sticks than they will get the concept. This concept can be used for many things and they could develop finances or engineering feats.

A formal representation of a concept has nothing intrinsically to do with the concept itself. If they can 'get the concept' by arranging sticks, then they can calculate. Calculation is symbolic manipulation generally, you're just switching from our present symbolic paradigm to sticks.

Originally Posted by Icecream

But without universe, there is still God. That's a core monotheistic belief that God was before the Universe or Multi-verses.

Irrelevant. All you're saying is that God would transcend physicality.

God is not physical.

This is inconsistent with your previous assertion. If God transcends physicality, then clearly God is physical and more.

Originally Posted by Icecream

Electric fields are used to understand a phenomenon of this universe. In other words, without any universe there is no electric fields concept.

But without universe, there is still God. That's a core monotheistic belief that God was before the Universe or Multi-verses. God is not physical.

Can you prove this? If the answer is no then I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

What'd I do :''(

I swear I did not flag that - I edited my post to reflect feeling bad for you. Someone's mad at ya', I guess.

Originally Posted by healthsci1

I see your point, what one considers physical would have to be defined. Anywho, my main concern is the effect on Pakistan. The US is essentially rubbing it in Pakistans face and are questioning the skills of the ISI. The US is making a crucial mistake and if its ties with Pakistan crumble it, the rising instability and the fact that Pakistan has a decent military is a reason of concern for me.

It's not just that but Pakistan was getting pissed (before Laden's death) that the US were using drones which killed many innocent folks and created more terrorists in the process.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

Can you prove this? If the answer is no then I don't believe you.

God isn't physical. I can't show you a physical proof of God. God made the atoms, so you cannot sense him. Why not ? Because before atoms there was God. So God is not made of atoms.

What I was asking about is PHYSICAL proof about a physical thing (bin laden's death, lifeless corpse)

This is going off topic anyway.

Originally Posted by Icecream

God isn't physical. I can't show you a physical proof of God. God made the atoms, so you cannot sense him. Why not ? Because before atoms there was God. So God is not made of atoms.

What I was asking about is PHYSICAL proof about a physical thing (bin laden's death, lifeless corpse)

This is going off topic anyway.

That's not what I asked you to prove.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

This is quite true, but your argument is a variant of the 'fallacy of affirming the consequent'. Sensibility is a necessary condition for verifiability, and you're inferring verifiability from sensibility.

A formal representation of a concept has nothing intrinsically to do with the concept itself. If they can 'get the concept' by arranging sticks, then they can calculate. Calculation is symbolic manipulation generally, you're just switching from our present symbolic paradigm to sticks.

.

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ? So what, it's because we affirm the consequent that technology exists.

Exactly, to get the concept you need to have some sort of physical experience.

How do some scientists understand the Big Bang by using a physical experience ? They think of a raisin bread in a microwave.

How do scientists understand quantum physics ? They don't understand because it is outside of human intuition. So they affirm it by experiments.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

That's not what I asked you to prove.

What that without Universe there is still God ?

Well that's simple. If we agree that God created the Universe, than God was before the Universe. And so the Universe disappearing won't affect God.

Originally Posted by Icecream

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ? So what, it's because we affirm the consequent that technology exists.

What nonsense. Please, read this before you comment on the topic further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...the_consequent

Exactly, to get the concept you need to have some sort of physical experience.

How do some scientists understand the Big Bang by using a physical experience ? They think of a raisin bread in a microwave.

How do scientists understand quantum physics ? They don't understand because it is outside of human intuition. So they affirm it by experiments.

I don't know whether you're deliberately changing the topic, but this is not a response to main point of my post.

Originally Posted by Icecream

What that without Universe there is still God ?

Well that's simple. If we agree that God created the Universe, than God was before the Universe. And so the Universe disappearing won't affect God.

Again, which means that God transcends the Universe. That in turn means that while we can't directly describe God, we can describe God through physical phenomena. Precisely analogous to the concept of an electric field.

Originally Posted by alh24

I swear I did not flag that - I edited my post to reflect feeling bad for you. Someone's mad at ya', I guess.

I'm so confused right now

Originally Posted by Mahratta

What nonsense. Please, read this before you comment on the topic further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...the_consequent



I don't know whether you're deliberately changing the topic, but this is not a response to main point of my post.

"Everything verifiable which is made of atoms is sensible."

Let's switch it around...

Everything which is sensible is made out of atoms and verifiable.

What's wrong ? You are calling a fallacy when there isn't.