Being good without god

[genkaus]

Whereas I think that is your mistake. The best example which I can think of is the distinction between things required for the universe to exist, like mathematical certainties, and universal constants, like the speed of light. One can conceive of a universe in which one or all of the known physical constants have different values, however, you cannot conceive of a universe in which 1+1=3. Knowledge of constants (inherencies) can come from empirical observation alone, but to acquire empirical knowledge of mathematical certainties (contingencies), say by setting apples in a row, there must be an a priori knowledge, knowledge that could be obtained by pure reason alone. Many mathematical concepts, like higher dimensions, are developed before they find real world application.

Not quite. These mathematical certainties and universal constants are required for this universe to exist. That is to say, if these the universe were something other than what it is, these constants and certainties would be different as well - leading to our understanding or rationality and mathematics being different as well. The concept of apriori knowledge doesn't enter here because someone, somewhere had to teach you and demonstrate to you that 1+1=2 - otherwise, you would not have known it. Further, I am not a mathematician, but my understanding is that it is an axiomatic field, i.e. the knowledge and principles applicable in a field of mathematical study would depend upon the axioms assumed to be true. Therefore, it would be possible for us to conceive of a body of mathematics where 1+1 = 3.

[Angrboda]

One can conceive of a universe in which one or all of the known physical constants have different values, however, you cannot conceive of a universe in which 1+1=3.

One cannot conceive of it because one has either intentionally or unintentionally not conceived of a universe that is actually "different" in a meaningful way from one's own.

If one were to invoke a meaningful difference along these lines then there's nothing stopping 1+1=3.

"2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2."



I don't personally mind the digression, Chad, as the thread had already begun to stagnate anyway (and it's one of three current threads on the topic, not counting Rayaan's).

For my part, while I find it interesting, this seems to trend in the direction of presuppositionalism, which causes many people to throw up in their mouth a bit. For my part, I have little interest in taking part in such discussions actively. I have at this point in my life arrived at a model which explains consciousness, logic, mathematics and a host of other phenomenon related to mind in terms of purely material, physicalist mechanisms. It is rather speculative and probably could use a few holes poked in it by able critics, but at the time, in concurrence with an episode of depression, I have no interest in discussing it. As such, largely on account of motivation, I'm reduced to a largely passive role in such discussions. Nonetheless, I find such discussions enjoyable to read, especially when visited by someone with an uncommon viewpoint, as well as the ability to compellingly articulate that view. If nothing else, it makes for good blood sport. (All kidding aside, pantheism, panentheism, Swedenborgianism and such are largely unexplored territory for me. It's not clear from my memory, but I seem to recall that you are a panentheist; my brief visits to Wikipedia on such in other times reveal a complexity to the subject that I had not at all anticipated. If you are a panentheist, I'd love to hear more. If not, I'd love to hear more of your specific vision, although it's been my suspicion that you've hesitated in terms of disclosure for largely strategic and tactical reasons. I can certainly identify with that.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

I have at this point in my life arrived at a model which explains consciousness, logic, mathematics and a host of other phenomenon related to mind in terms of purely material, physicalist mechanisms. It is rather speculative and probably could use a few holes poked in it by able critics...

I can respect that. I also find myself with a philosophy that adequately addresses my curiosities. That doesn't stop me from continuing to study and learn from opposing points of view, so it's entirely possible I could swing the other way.

If you are a panentheist, I'd love to hear more. If not, I'd love to hear more of your specific vision, although it's been my suspicion that you've hesitated in terms of disclosure for largely strategic and tactical reasons. I can certainly identify with that.)

Swedenborgian theology is indeed largely panentheistic, although I don't think that term existed at the time he was writing. By way of disclosure, I identify with panentheism, but I'm not exactly sure if my 'vision' truly fits that category. Participating in these debates seems to help me clarify the ideas. So I would love to present something later when I have a better idea of what I'm thinking, but like you,I have a lot on my plate. In real time, I'm putting together a lecture on Swedenborg and that takes quite a bit of time just by itself. Maybe after that is complete I'll have better grasp of the issues.

[wandering soul]

Well this thread evolved into something it clearly didn't start out as.

Yes, I know. For people like me who don't have time to drop in so often, you find an interesting topic and it's already morphed into 5 different directions and run its course and everyone moved on before you've had a chance to put out your own brilliant comments on the original topic!

The universal ideosphere must not have been favorably configured for my particular ideas at the moment!
http://atheistforums.org/images/icons/wink.gif

---

Well this thread evolved into something it clearly didn't start out as.

Yes, I know. For people like me who don't have time to drop in so often, you find an interesting topic and it's already morphed into 5 different directions and run its course and everyone moved on before you've had a chance to put out your own brilliant comments on the original topic!

The universal ideosphere must not have been favorably configured for my particular ideas at the moment!

[xXUKAtheistForTheTruthXx]

Its possible yo

[Gonzalo697]

 Aren't you using "chance" in the exact same way in which you accuse christians of using "god of the gaps"

[Whateverist]

"2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2."

That is so much fun. Have you considered continuing Lewis Carroll's work?