I quiver in fear that my number is up, now that Dinesh has caught on. With great trepidation, I read his screed, certain that such a brilliant mind would demolish my godless ways with his deep insight.
Well, no. He’s indignant, but he’s got nothing to say. Oh, well, I’m sure there might be someone out there with greater wit than him who will teach me a lesson.
Sure, because you ignore the arguments that show that the Christian world-view cannot possibly be true.
“There are no flaws in the Emperor’s Clothes,” says the man who refuses to open his eyes. “Therefore the nudity of which you speak cannot be true.”
Empirically, of course.
That’s why we hold with the principle of falsifiability: if there is a contradicting case, the contradicting case can be shown. The contradicting case may be itself self-contradictory, which is why we can be so confident in inferring that the unobserved cases will indeed be like the observed cases. If the contradicting case is not self-contradicting, then all that means is that a potential new inductive rule exists… which can be discovered empirically.
John, I would reply but just read what Nick Gotts wrote. I’d just be copying mostly what he said anyway.
In terms of science: it’s a deductive process that when combined is inductive. This is why there’s no absolute certainty in science, only degrees of certainty. But like I said, if you think that gravity isn’t going to always be there, you are welcome to test it out by jumping off a tall building to test it out. The falsifiability does break the largely break the problem of induction; just look at the discovery of the black swan. “All swans are white”, “we’ve found a black swan” – ‘all swans are white’ is falsified.
See, observation shows that these laws do not change, the effects are measures time and time again; in fact we rely on them not changing in order to have complex electrical devices. If some of these laws changed even slightly, matter would rip itself apart and the universe would be nothing more than a drifting dust cloud. If you want to believe a giant transcendental clock keeps it from breaking, then go ahead. But there is no reason to suggest this, you are just speculating.
I think I want to rework my comment @#484 a bit more formally…
PlantwankerPlantinga’s argument is, in fact, self-refuting.He posits this “morally sufficient reason for allowing evil”, but does not demonstrate that such a thing actually exists. However, such a reason, if it existed, would force the exact same limitations on God that would contradict the Christian conception of God as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Such a reason, if it existed, would be in place so that God might presumably achieve some ultimately beneficent goal, hence, the “morally justified” clause. Yet, what follows from this is that either God is too weak to achieve whatever that goal is, or God does not know how else to achieve this goal, without using this hypothesized “reason”.
Thus, since the argument attempts to solve the problem of evil and in fact cannot do so, it is indeed self-refuting.
How dare, you sir, call the deepest and most profound mysteries of religion “utter bilge”! Are you not aware of the many intelligent and learnéd theologians who have struggled mightily with resolving these mysteries? Some have even very nearly approached a close approximation of something the might just possibly be resolution! Clearly, you are deeply ignorant of the Queen of Sciences, as theology has been called; the study of all that God might possibly be instead of, as you atheists claim, entirely imaginary and nonexistent! Shame! Such immature and gratuitous abuse is more appropriate to the adolescent ilk that infest the World of Warcraft forums! [&c, &c, vapors ad nauseum]
David Hume, 1737:
Hume here provides a classic statement of the problem of induction. On purely empirical grounds, past experience provides no basis for believing that the future will be like the past.
The standard of falsifiability does not overcome this problem. In fact, it depends on the assumption that the future will operate like the past. But, as Hume notes, empiricists have no rational basis for believing the future will resemble the past.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clearer. I assumed that any reader with – how did Nick put it? – “with any philosophical sophistication” would be familiar with this well-known problem.
Here is a clearer statement of the problem:
The appeal to physical laws made by some posters is especially inappropriate. First, if physical laws are merely descriptive rather than regulative, as has been suggested above, then what is the basis for predicting future cases? The uniformity of nature would suffice, but that cannot be established on empiricist grounds, contra Owlmirror, for the very reasons Hume has already given.
Second, the empiricist cannot resort to regulative physical laws precisely because the empiricist cannot observe physical laws. This problem, again, is at least 270 years old.
Hume, again:
This is an old, well-known problem for empiricism. It is not the invention of crazy, axe-grinding Christians. Nor is it a trivial challenge. Indeed, according to Bertrand Russell, “The growth of unreason throughout the nineteenth century and what has passed of the twentieth is a natural sequel to Hume’s destruction of empiricism.”
This problem is so serious that Russell wrote:
Since Hume, philosophers have further critiqued empiricism. It has not overcome the egocentric predicament. The empiricist concept of concept formation has been refuted by Wilfred Sellars and by Ludwig Wittgenstein. And the empiricism claim that “all knowledge is based on empirical observation” has been shown to be self-refuting.
…Which reminds me: Owlmirror, you keep misusing the term “self-refuting.”
Later all.
.
You know, there’s something absurd going on when all of these philosophers were having the vapors over the problem of induction, when I am certain that they lived their lives as if empiricism were true and their personal inductions were valid.
And you yourself are doing the same. You aren’t cloistered in some hermitage or insane asylum, rocking back and forth in a robe or straitjacket and mumbling “I know nothing for certain”; you’re using a computer which was created by pragmatically assuming that nature is indeed uniform. You argue from your knowledge of philosophers and from the foundational knowledge that enabled you to learn what these philosophers wrote; if you had no way of knowing anything, you would not be here, and arguing (badly) from that knowledge that we have no way of knowing anything.
So your argument is, once again, self-refuting.
I most certainly am not.
You, on the other hand, have badly misused the term “internally coherent”.
I assume, from your utter failure to address any of the arguments made, that you concede that Christianity is in point of fact completely incoherent.
Exactly. John, the entire production of our modern civilisation depends on the laws of physics working. Like I keep saying, would you bet your life on the laws of gravity being wrong? It’s induction to say we’d fall from a building, but it’s inductive reasoning that is falsifiable any time someone wants to jump. We need the laws of strong and weak bonding to be as they are to hold atoms together, we need the law of electromagnetism in order to keep our computers working.
Quite simply the existence of the universe as we know it needs the laws to be static. We have deduced that from observation and evidence. Science is a deductive process, it’s inductive as a means of falsification. You can go on about induction all you want, but the simple fact is that science works. Mars could be randomly moving around the universe but just happens to be at exactly the right spot every time we look at it, we can’t know that it doesn’t. But I’d be willing to bet that it moves in conjunction to planetary orbits as restricted by the laws of gravity, and I’m sure you would to. If you think mars is jumping around randomly, then all you need to do is show that it is and the idea that mars orbits the sun in uniform motion as defined by the laws of gravity would be falsified.
I apologise for the formatting there, I did put a couple of line breaks in but they didn’t to transfer to the final post. Will use HTML formatting in the future as WYSIWYG is unreliable.
Ya know, I almost added a caveat at the end of my last post, explaining that I was not criticizing empirical investigation. Rather, I was criticizing the idea that all knowledge is based on empirical observation. Almost. But I thought, “No, they understand what I mean when I use the term ’empiricism.’ It’s a pretty standard philosophical term.”
Guess not.
Owlmirror writes:
Classic beginner’s mistake.
I am not endorsing skepticism. Rather, I am making the point that empiricism leads to skepticism is followed consistently. I even quoted two of the most important empiricists in the history of philosophy to make my point.
Nor do I live “as if empiricism were true.” I don’t live as if “all knowledge [were] based on sense perception.” I don’t and quite frankly neither do you. If you did, you wouldn’t use induction, you wouldn’t trust your senses, and you would use neither concepts, nor mathematics, nor logic.
In fact, in your daily life, you live much more like a Christian theist, trusting in God’s orderly & comprehensible creation, than like an empiricist. And if you going act as if Christian theism is true, maybe you should start talking like it’s true, too.
But empiricism plus skepticism plus falsifiability leads to science.
Wait — only sense perception? Of course not. And neither do you, indeed.
There’s also this thing called “memory”, without which sense perception is just raw data.
Your argument is so self-refuting. Take into account memory, or else all you have is garbage in, garbage out.
Balderdash. Christian theism is self-refuting.
Not even you trust in God’s “orderly and comprehensible” creation, since you reject that that order and comprehensibility can be determined empirically.
Aaaaaaaarrrrgggghh.
Owlmirror, in grown-up philosophy, “skepticism” refers to the idea that nothing can be known. Like rationalism, of course, skepticism is sometimes used as a propaganda term for secularism. The sense in which I used the term, as should have been obvious from context, was the philosophical sense.
So I wonder: Are you completely dishonest? Or are you twelve years old?
I’m actually kind of hurt. Here I am, keeping things ticking along smoothly, and even a so-called believer rejects the obvious empirical consistency in My work. Oh, ye of little faith.
Although… Maybe I should not have outsourced the whole business of maintaining an epistemic foundation to My sockpuppet. Descartes got it wrong; he should have written: Satanas cogitavi, ergo cogito, ergo sum.
JK, why are you talking about honesty and dishonesty when you cannot show any physical evidence as proof for your god, which is the height of dishonesty Time for you to grow up and stop bothering your betters.
Sure, blame Me for Your screwups; that’s what I’m here for, Mister-oh-I’ll-create-Man-in-My-own-image. And here I am now, slaving away, trying to cope with everyone from infants who get distracted by their own bowel movements to adults distracted by their aroused genitalia. It’s a madhouse, I tell you. I should sub-sub-contract to Cthulhu….
I keep wondering whatever became of the Black Knight from “Holy Grail” after arthur left him limbless at the bridge.
now I know.
he started going by his original name, and became a pretend sociologist named John.
Glad ta meet ya good sir knight. Still threatening to bite people’s legs off after all this time?
Pfft. If you mean Pyrrhonism, you can by damn well specify Pyrrhonism.
“Propaganda”. Your religion is nothing but propaganda.
Are you?
Or are you a hypocrite? Or are you a small child who sticks his fingers in his ears, squeezes his eyes shut, and goes “nananana!” as a way of avoiding dealing with arguments you don’t like?
Sometimes rationalism is used as a propaganda term for religiots who have to change its meaning to the nth-degree.
Just ask Aquinas.
Don’t be ridiculous. You know he sleeps on the job.
And while it would be amusing for a while, his dreaming while being the epistemic foundation would result in everyone thinking that they are poached eggs, or even stranger things. Not to mention that if he does wake up, the extinction of humanity would eventually mean boredom, again, for the both of Us, after a brief period of insane excitement.
Our problem with what you are arguing is that you seem to be trying to break down empiricism (by prattling on about the problem of induction) in order so you can facilitate your totally unempirical beliefs. Of course all knowledge isn’t empirical, but the problem for a dualist is showing that their beliefs are anything more than being made up. How do we determine if your God is real or not?
Your argument to me is along the same lines as “God is love” where the person arguing for God tries to make the case that love can’t be empirically measured but we can experience it, and use that as an analogy for God. Of course it’s a load of crap because love is a chemical and neurological stimuli made wholly from material parts while the concept of God is beyond space and time; love is natural, God isn’t.
Yes, there are limits to empiricism. But that doesn’t mean that “making stuff up” begins to be a coherent worldview. How is your God any different from Thor, or Ra, or Zeus, or Brahman, or The Rainbow Serpent, or Ziltoid The Omniscient? How can you even know without having some impartial means of measurement? How is anything you think about the deity’s existence anything more than blind speculation based on social and cultural indoctrination?
You’ve spent enough time trying to break down empiricism, it’s time now to talk up just why you think your means of “knowing” God is valid. Otherwise you are no better than a creationist who takes pot-shots at evolution without showing why his own case is right. Even if empiricism is not 100% (you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who says it is), it doesn’t validate your worldview in any way. You need to talk up why the way you believe is valid.
The discussion of John Knight in recent posts feels very post-modern.
It’s like saying that “evolution requires faith” therefore it and creationism are comparable. Not even close.
I’m confused.
You can begin to see, I think, where I’m having trouble addressing your world-view.
This is funny:
That makes no sense whatsoever. Is Owlmirror claiming that since I do not believe in X on his grounds, I do not believe in X at all?
Not only is it crazy, it inverts the order of reasoning. First, I trust in God. Second, I trust His revelation of an orderly, comprehensible creation. Third, I trust in empirical investigation, including induction, made possible by God’s self-revelation of His character and His creation.
If you have a non-contradictory foundation for induction, please show me. I still have not seen any non-Christian world-view that makes sense in any rigorous philosophical sense.
More fun…
Nerd writes:
Please show me that physical evidence is required. Please supply some or I must conclude that you are an empty mocker.
Shorter John Knight:
Proof? I don’t need no stinkin’ proof!
They never have proof.
John lives his life much more like a Hindu polytheist, trusting in Brahma’s orderly creation.
Sorry John, but you’ll have to pull your head a little further out of your ass if you want to claim that Christianity is consistent with an empirically observable and predictable universe than any other religion with (a) creator god(s).
Don’t worry too much about it though. I know knowledge about other people and their beliefs is toxic to conservative Christians.
On a more serious note…
Kel writes:
I have never claimed that I was making stuff up. But I’m not sure that you’re not making up answers to difficult problems that your world-view faces. Induction? The egocentric predicament? Concept formation? Basic epistemology?
You have now renounced the idea that all knowledge is based on sense perception. Okay, so now what is your claim? Can you give me a world-view that even begins to make sense?
You want me to provide empirical evidence of Christian theism, but we have seen that we cannot demand empirical evidence of all fact claims. So what is your basis for claiming that empirical evidence is appropriate for verifying a world-view?
God is actually a giant octopus that feeds on unborn babies and rides a black unicorn, and sends everyone to hell, because Satan is actually his brother, and they like their arrangement.
Evidence? I don’t need any evidence.
Brownian writes:
That is a ridiculous claim. Hinduism does not portray an orderly universe. Hindu creation myths feature chaos & accident. And in Hinduism the material universe is treated maya or illusion. I do not treat he physical universe as an illusion.
Did you miss the words “fallibility of the senses”? That contextualises everything. What you’ve quoted there highlights anecdotal evidence and why we don’t accept it.
Presently there are things beyond empirical measure (it’s a limitation of the tools and our intellect), but that doesn’t change that everything we are or know is material. And it doesn’t change that God is still nothing more than blind speculation passed on through cultural indoctrination. In short, you are making a huge deal about the use of the word empiricism and that detracts away from the point I’ve been arguing. We are still material entities; arranged compositions of matter. We are made of trillions of atoms, these are the building blocks of all life and of all objects in the universe.
So what does the problem of induction have to do with that worldview? Just think materialism, not empiricism. Empiricism plays it’s part, it’s how I know that the force of gravity works, how electromagnetism works, how solar bodies interact, how we came to be. But empiricism is there for my understanding of the universe, materialism is my worldview. There’s one reality, it’s the one of energy and matter; with some dark matter and dark energy thrown in. This is the world you live in too, it’s the observable reality. I’m sure you will agree that we both live in this world as far as we can tell. Fallibility of the senses and all. What the difference is that I don’t see any reason to suspect that there is a power from outside this reality that comes in here and manipulates events on one planet which orbits one star of about 200 billion in this galaxy, which in turn is one of about 125 billion galaxies in the observable universe (we hit that event horizon point).
Now onto you, how do you derive your belief in God to a point that is more than simply blind speculation? How is your belief in God anything more than cultural indoctrination wiring your brain?
Turning me into a pillar of salt. Opening the mouth of some ass so it can talk. A talking snake, talking bush… showing up in Central Park and talking to New Yorkers. Have jesus ascend from heaven and walk across the Columbia River. I’m easy to convince.
Give me some physical evidence for your world-view, or stop demanding physical evidence.
Give me some physical evidence that all evidence is physical evidence, or stop claiming that I don’t demand evidence.
Wait. Kel, is there some knowledge which is not based on empirical observation? Yes, no, maybe?
Is there some knowledge which is not ultimately based on sense perception? Yes, no, maybe?
Shorter Mr. Knight:
In the grown-up world, it’s ok if you make stuff up and pass it off as Truth.
“First, I trust in God.”
Have you ever really broken that one down? How can you claim that it’s the foundation of a coherent world-view? It relies on a base assumption that is far more extravagant than the one that props up induction. How is “I trust in God” more coherent or supportable than “I trust that reliable conclusions can usually be drawn from repeated and repeatable observations”?
I didn’t say you were making stuff up, I’m saying that your God without evidence is entirely indistinguishable from making stuff up. You’ve missed the point of empiricism by a long long way. And yes, I recognise there are problems with empiricism, there are limits. But there are also uses, practical uses. The computers we are both sitting on requires precise knowledge of how the basics of our reality work. We need to understand how electromagnetism works, and how to precisely transmit it, we need the components to be made of precise materials and the voltage lengths required to turn that electricity and material into logic gates. These are incredibly powerful devices that are only here because of empirical measure. Empiricism, even with it’s faults, works. It may not give us an absolute understanding of every facet of nature, but it gives us a practical application.
Can you twist my words any further?
This is what I wrote on my blog regarding evidence:
The great disparity of reason is that while all we can ever truly know is based on our own experience, the brain is a poor mechanism for both comprehending and rationalising the extent of the world. They are not finely tuned machines, they are clumsy. The fallibility of man, of memory, of interpreting our thoughts and actions is well established. It’s with that the argument to personal experience is not accepted. What can appear real to us is not necessarily so, and even the most sound mind and hardened sceptic is prone to the same shortcomings and limitations that the mind allows.
Could you please stop going on about induction? Science is a deductive process in how we derive knowledge, and it’s inductive in it’s falsification. But even then, there still is no certainty. You make the mistake of thinking that I’m absolutely correct.
None of this even begins to show how *you* derive the world. Why is your view valid? What makes your view anything more than blind speculation based on cultural indoctrination? How, in effect, do you measure an immeasurable object?
No, that’s backwards. You have no knowledge of God whatsoever outside of what is told in the “revelation”, or story.
So:
First, you trust in a story a few thousand years old, told to you by others, which you have no way whatsoever of confirming. You trust that the entire chain of transmission, starting from Paul of Tarsus, did not involve anyone who was insane, deluded, mistaken, or lying, all the way down to yourself, and that your own interpretation of this revelation is true and correct, and that no other claims of revelation made by humans are true and correct: an argument from confirmation bias, and the fallacy of special pleading.
Second, you trust that this revelation is indeed from God, and therefore that God is real.
No:
Third you reject that God needs or requires empirical evidence of his character, and yet enables this in every other thing in existence: A self-refuting argument, again by way of the fallacy of special pleading.
I don’t suppose you’ve ever considered that a God who was indeed real would be aware of the problems that humans have with verifying facts and truths, and would not choose such a ridiculously error-prone method of communication as “special revelation”? No, of course, not. Because your greatest error is your own absolute certainty that you understand anything at all…
But you are.
Paul of Tarsus made up a story about God. You are making up your own certainty that Paul was in any way correct, and that your interpretation of Paul is correct.
Should I answer black & white questions of issues where fuzzy logic would mean I’m bound to contradict myself? Yes, no, maybe?
Define knowledge, define sense perception, give meticulous definitions so I know exactly what you will infer from my answers. Because currently you aren’t doing a very good job of being precise on these things, and I get the feeling you are twisting my words in order to rant against something you don’t fully understand.
Empiricism is indeed non-contradictory.
The only one who has claimed otherwise, here, is you — and you have not made a coherent argument in this regard. Unsurprisingly, given your general love of incoherence — just like Paul of Tarsus, in some ways. No wonder you have an affinity for the old fraud.
Right now I feel obliged to point out John Knight’s earlier comment:
John, are we still haters of God and of people who try to honour God? Yes, no, maybe?
Don’t forget the fallacy of argument by fiat, and argument ad populum, petitio principii, affirming the consequent, fallacy of accident, non sequitur… really, examine his epistemology long enough, and you’ll find more fallacious arguments than you can shake a copy of De Natura Deorum at.
Not to mention argumentum verbosium. The man just babbles on and on…
Now, if he would just pay attention to Me, he wouldn’t have to rely on Paul‘s revelation. I’m the real deal. And I never make fallacious arguments or lie.
Isn’t that more or less what you told Paul of Tarsus? I’m just asking.
If you don’t want to use empirical evidence to prove God, you don’t have to. What I’m asking is that you show a proof for God that covers the claims of Christianity and cannot be applied to other supernatural concepts.
Shush!
Verbum sat sapienti
Who are those guys?
εν αρχη ην ο αλογος και ο αλογος ην προς τον αθεον και αθεος ην ο αλογος
So, I take it gawd is not capable of recreating his former physical feats? He can’t walk in a garden with his creations and have a conversation? He can no longer make animals talk, or people rise from the dead?
Yes, or no John?
Translated into English: “one ring to rule them all”
You forgot the ‘maybe’ option ;)
Kel, I’m not trying to twist your words. I told you up front that, in my experience, the non-Christian world-views are not coherent.
I am aware of several major problems with empiricism as a theory of knowledge. Induction is one problem. So is the egocentric predicament. So is the problem of concept formation. So is the break-down of the analytic-synthetic distinction. Even more fundamentally, the claim that “all knowledge is based on sense perception” is self-contradictory.
(Really self-contradictory, not just “something Owlmirror doesn’t want to believe.”)
Materialism as a metaphysical outlook likewise has serious negative epistemological implications.
As for definitions:
Knowledge: Justified true belief.
(Believing that a given roll of the dice will come up snake eyes, even if it turns out to be true, is not knowledge because it is not justified. A lucky guess is not knowledge, so even true beliefs are not always knowledge.)
Sense perception… Sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch.
I am being critical of empiricism as a theory of knowledge precisely because the claim that “all knowledge is based on sense perception” seems to be implicit in almost every objection made by posters. (Nerd, for example, demands physical proof, as if all knowledge is based on physical proof.) Not only is that claim self-refuting, it produces invalid objections that may seem plausible in light of the tacit assumption that “all knowledge is based on sense perception.”
In order to adequately deal with these true-seeming objections, I have to deal with the false premise behind the objection. Simply put, a great deal of knowledge does not depend on sense perception.
Also, I see no reason to abandon my world-view for yours if yours is self-contradictory.
Ksen: Good point. I should have been clearer. In the Christian world-view as I understand it, human knowledge begins with the self-revelation of God. So, in that sense, my trust is not the first step. But I was speaking of the sequence of my beliefs, which is a slightly different point.
Yes, or no John?
Let him sleep on it.
He’ll give you an answer in the mo-o-orning.
Kel, I’m not trying to twist your words. I told you up front that, in my experience, the non-Christian world-views are not coherent.
I am aware of several major problems with empiricism as a theory of knowledge. Induction is one problem. So is the egocentric predicament. So is the problem of concept formation. So is the break-down of the analytic-synthetic distinction. Even more fundamentally, the claim that “all knowledge is based on sense perception” is self-contradictory.
(Really self-contradictory, not just “something Owlmirror doesn’t want to believe.”)
Materialism as a metaphysical outlook likewise has serious negative epistemological implications.
As for definitions:
Knowledge: Justified true belief.
(Believing that a given roll of the dice will come up snake eyes, even if it turns out to be true, is not knowledge because it is not justified. A lucky guess is not knowledge, so even true beliefs are not always knowledge.)
Sense perception… Sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch.
I am being critical of empiricism as theory of knowledge precisely because the claim that “all knowledge is based on sense perception” seems to be implicit in almost every objection made by posters. (Nerd, for example, demands physical proof, as if all knowledge is based on physical proof.) Not only is that claim self-refuting, it produces invalid objections that may seem plausible in light of the tacit assumption that “all knowledge is based on sense perception.”
In order to adequately deal with these true-seeming objections, I have to deal with the false premise behind the objection. Simply put, a great deal of knowledge does not depend on sense perception.
Ksen: Good point. I should have been clearer. In the Christian world-view as I understand it, human knowledge begins with the self-revelation of God. So, in that sense, my trust is not the first step. But I was speaking of the sequence of my beliefs, which is a slightly different point.
Keep on arguing by fiat. I’m sure you’re continuing to impress yourself with your own erudition.
I haven’t said that I don’t want to believe it. I am saying that you are all mouth, all fallacy, and no substance.
More fiat.
And of course, all you need for justification and truth is your own word. Because your special pleading is special.
How about believing that it will come up as a number between two and twelve inclusive?
Come up with knowledge that is based on zero sense perception at all. Even your own pretend make-believe “knowledge” of the alleged truth of the bible is based on the “sense perception” of having read the words.
A “great deal” of knowledge? Such as? Oh, right. “Because John Knight says so” counts as “knowledge”.
Self-refuting balderdash.
And I called into question your ability to make that judgement. I ask again, were you brought up Christian?
Explain how. Don’t just assert it.
You keep going on about induction, yet that is not relevant to the discussion. It just seems you are all like “Look, Kel said empiricism. Here are the problems of empiricism…” When really I’m not arguing that at all. I’m arguing for materialism, something we can and have observed. We are wholly material creatures, our brains, our thoughts, everything about us are products of materialism. You are asserting beyond that, that an immaterial being is playing around with the material world. How can you possibly say that without providing any evidence that it does?
If you are going to be that narrow in terms of sense perception then I would not agree. If by senses you mean everything the body can experience including thoughts and emotions, then I would agree that sense perception is accounts for all personal knowledge. In terms of that knowledge being right, that’s another thing entirely.
You are misunderstanding the nature of empiricism. And like I’ve said, if you have a better way of measuring reality, show it! Like I said, how do you look at your own beliefs objectively? How do you discern between God and Ganesh? Between Yahweh and Yivo? Between Jesus and Horus? Between the trinity and Thor? How do you know that the God of Israel is the one true God as written in the bible? What critical thought do you use?
Empiricism is not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than any other tool we have out there. You seem to neglect empiricism’s practical application: the scientific method. Just comprehend what empiricism has brought to the understanding of reality in the time since Hume. Science is a deductive process, not an inductive one. “Here’s the evidence, what can we deduce to fit the evidence?”. Falsifiability works to counter induction as you see with the statement “All swans are white” is falsified with the discovery of a single black swan.
Basically you are just trying to weasel your way out of showing any form of evidence that your God is real. You are trying to attack the worldviews of people here just as a creationist attacks evolution; you don’t bring any evidence of your own, just push the idea that other people have a flawed worldview and hope that yours looks good by comparison. Again, this is what creationists do. They don’t tie themselves down to specifics because specifics can be falsified.
Basically, I see you as an intellectual coward. You are afraid to do anything other than attack other people’s worldviews because your own is so utterly incomprehensible. You’ve been flogging a dead horse in your attacks on empiricism, saying the same thing over and over again (I know about the problem of induction already, you repeating it for a 7th time won’t change that empiricism works despite it’s assumptions), yet you still won’t provide any good reason that your beliefs are valid.
What good reason do you have that Jesus lived, that he was born of a virgin, that he performed miracles such as walking on water and healing the sick? What good reason do you have that he was tortured and killed on the cross only to rise 3 days later? What reason do you have to believe that this man is both the son of God and God himself? What good reason do you have that there is that immaterial being out there who gave rise to the universe that it meddles in human affairs, that it answers prayers, heals the sick (but not amputees), watches over our world and helps us in times of need? Do you have even a good reason to believe that Jesus is more than just legend? And what good reasons of these do not have parallels in other cultures and with other religons?
Again with the post-modern inanity. Just because there are flaws in any worldview, it does not mean for a second that all worldviews are equal. Again, this is the same tactic creationists use; they think because science doesn’t have the answers to absolutely everything regarding biology it means that Creationism is a comparable concept. It’s false reasoning, But I would assert my worldview is not self-contradictory as I use the qualifier that it can change as new evidence comes to light. You don’t seem to grasp the idea of fuzzy logic; that degrees of certainty are complementary to any empirical conclusion. I do not claim absolute certainty, and I do claim that my reality is falsifiable. What is contradictory about that?
I won’t except a maybe answer in this case. Either gawd can do his physical, 2000+ year old tricks or he can’t.
It wowed em’ then, it would wow us now.
John can’t answer the Riddle of Epicurus.
Kel: I have stated my evidence for Christian theism from the beginning: Christian theism makes sense; other world-views, in my experience, do not make sense.
But let me be more formal: Christian theism is self-consistent and provides a sounds basis for knowledge, reasoning, and moral judgment. Non-Christian world-views undermine the foundations of knowledge, reasoning, and moral judgments.
Let me, as you suggest, use the example of empiricism:
In the nature of the case, sense perception cannot verify (or even falsify) the claim that all knowledge is based on sense perception. You cannot see knowledge or weigh justification or taste epistemological warrant. You cannot empirically observe an idea being based on an experience. This claim, then, cannot be based on sense perception. It refutes itself.
In the history of philosophy, “empiricism” is not just empirical methodology. Some questions are primarily empirical and suited to empirical investigation. But, for a long time now, “empiricism” has meant the idea that all knowledge is based on sense perception. I even asked you if that was what you meant.
I certainly regret any confusion, since I would much prefer to address your world-view than some other world-view.
Good night for now.
Firstly, you keep saying it’s self-consistent without showing anything more than “It’s my opinion.”
Secondly, since when is Christian theism a sound basis for knowledge, reasoning and moral judgement? It does none of those. It’s based around a book that contains many contradictions, physical impossibilities, historical innaccuracies, and delivers a very questionable moral doctrine that does not reflect the behaviour or man.
Surely an all-powerful deity would have been able to get the story of creation right; or at the very least consistent. There’s two different creation tales in the first two books. And neither of those creation tales come even close to matching what has been discovered through empiricism. It would have been able to write of historical events that actually happened, giving stories that fit perfectly with archaeological evidence. Yet the bible doesn’t contain much historical fact at all, it references a few people and places but seldom does it get the dates right. There are even two different stories for the birth of Jesus that historically would make Yeshua’s birth either before 4BCE or after 6CE.
And as for morality? I can’t think of a worse book for people to derive morality from it. That God character is one of the most malevolent characters in mythology out there; the devil is not the one to fear in Christianity. God punished all manking becoase Adam and Eve ate from a tree that gave them knowledge. He murdered all the first born children of Israel after stopping the Pharaoh from letting the children go. He participated in acts of genocide alongside the Israeli army which involved killing all men, women, children, livestock, and taking the town’s treasure. Yes, this the same God that will condemn anyone who blasphemes against the holy spirit to hell without repent, the one who thinks it’s okay to rape women of another tribe once killing the men and children. God destroyed a city because he thought it immoral, drowned almost all life because he was unhappy with mankind, separated people because they worked together to build a giant tower. The one and same redeemer of all mankind is hardly a source of morality.
Yet all knowledge and justification are material, they exist within the brain. Our brains are material entities, our thoughts are simply neurons firing in patterns.
Then go after the materialism, not the empiricism. I use empiricism as a tool to understand the world around me. Materialism would be a better worldview to attack.
Yet you still aren’t providing any reasoning for your own. Please stop this quasi-creationist rhetoric and start showing how your worldview is even remotely valid. Show how a dualist worldview can even be considered as equal to a monoist worldview. You aren’t doing that, you are just throwing potshots at others without showing why we should put a mystical realm over reality.
JK, you are the one positing god. I do not posit god. You must show some physical proof for your god that can pass muster with scientist, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine original. Failure to do so means that everyone reading these post will presume your are a professional con man, and everything you say must be looked at under the highest scrutiny, where it will fail to pass muster.
So sir, time to put up or shut up. Which will it be?
I’m guessing more long posts about the problem of induction.
He buggers off, and he runs away, brave brave Sir John.
Coward.
You ignore my offer of bronze age miracles. Have gawd do his old show and I’ll bow down and worship him 24/7.
Hell, I’m not even asking gawd to answer for Katrina, the Challenger, 9/11, the Tsunami – just do a little thing like make an ass speak, or show up in the garden, raise the dead. I miss my grandpa! Come on gawd, vacation is over.
Now we know why all non-christian civilizations were never able to develop there own foundations of knowledge, reasoning, and moral judgment. We can all see why, for example, the Chinese fall apart so long ago. It just was not possible for them to last for four thousand years.
Oh, thank you, John Knight for providing all of these proofless truths. I am feeling more wise already.
And how do we know? Why, because John Knight says so! And John Knight is always right…… right?
Wait… Is he right?
Christian theism on knowledge and reasoning:
Christian theism on moral judgement:
John Knight is dead WRONG!
This sort of argument might have flown in the 8th or 9th century, or even the 18th or 19th. But here in the 21st century, it demonstrates a pathetic ignorance of modern neurobiology (and even in the past, someone with knowledge of medicine and the body could have pointed to brain damage as a demonstration of the physical correlates of the mind).
“Cannot see knowledge”: PET and CAT scans. fMRIs. We can watch the ebb and flow as the brain recognizes and processes information; we can observe neural growth correlating with activity; see mirror neurons fire as an action is itself observed; note the changes in behavior that result from the absence of function in certain brain areas. We can test the various types of memory and how they work, and what exactly happens when they fail, and which types of memory will continue to work when other types aren’t there.
We can even extend this empirical observation to behavioral areas that cover morality and ethics; proffer examples of dilemmas and see what the brain does in each case; suppress certain sections of the brain and watch behavior change.
And this is just stupid, and doesn’t even need advanced brain observation technology to show why: If someone learns something, and knows they have learned it, they can then demonstrate, empirically, that they know it.
Of course it can. Your argument from outdated crap arguments and ignorance is totally refuted.
brave brave Sir John.
*psst*
Robin.
Ichthyic,
Thou are’t correct sirra!
The brain: Mystical? Yes. Immaterial? No.
It’s a material organ, made from the same matter as everything else. The way it works is wholly material, so the thoughts and experiences that are a product of our brain’s higher functioning are material as well. There’s empirical ways to test this; damage the brain and see what function is lost. If thoughts and memories were immaterial, they should be able to survive an attack on the brain. Yet we see when parts of the brain die, the function associated with that part of the brain dies too.
Thou are’t correct sirra!
really, I just used it as an excuse to link to yet another great moment in Python history.
even though I’ve seen it at least as many times as JK’s spiel, it’s still far more entertaining.
John Knight is dead WRONG!
I dunno, don’t you all pretty much feel like it’s whip/dead horse time? actually, I think he’s been whipped past the point of being even useful for dog food at this point.
OTOH, who am i to advise those that like to play their fish for a long, long time before either finally gaffing them, or cutting the line.
so, is this catch and release, or do you plan to finally filet and fry up the bastard?
Nope, you are the fishy master Ichthyic.
This guy doesn’t even register as a dungfish.
I twirl off!
The guy just doesn’t get it at all. Given his earlier posts in this thread and what he posted about abstinence, I don’t think he’d ever get it.
Congratulations, John Knight; you’ve set set a new benchmark for the application of Poe’s Law. Your willful ignorance is truly frightening.
I don’t think he’d ever get it.
ever think that maybe he doesn’t want to?
xian trolls are like that, you know.
It’s a lot like playing whack-a-mole.
Of course he doesn’t want to, he’s the philosophical equivalent of a creationist.
Only without the points tally and the satisfaction of physically beating the smug bastards!
John Knight wrote: “Christian theism is self-consistent and provides a sounds basis for knowledge, reasoning, and moral judgment”
Please then explain the Standard Model in Biblical terms, providing direct evidence for it.
Of course. But we are like moths to a flame, attracted to the field of ignorance. We’re drawn in, but we just can’t leave until the field is deactivated or removed. I’ve only ever seen it removed, just once I would like to see it deactivated.
So John Knight hasn’t come back. Probably too busy working on the Standard Model of Biblical Physics to continue posting about the problem of induction.
Or he’s sulking because we wouldn’t let him get away with epistemological and logical murder.
1) The problem of induction exists
2) Therefore, empiricism is self-refuting
3) Therefore, God exists and Christianity is absolutely true and consistent and has no logical problems and is the source of all knowledge, reasoning and moral judgment blah blah blah.
We should get that one added to this list:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
And that comes from the same person who said this:
“There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’ ” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master–that’s all.”
I confess that I feel a bit like poor Alice in this conversation. My challengers keep using words in ways that are confusing, inconsistent, and obfuscatory. For example, when I discuss empiricism as an epistemology, Kel replies by referring to “what has been discovered through empiricism.” It seems clear from his comment that he is now speaking of empiricism as a methodology rather than as an epistemology. It makes me wonder if he understands what an epistemology really is.
Kel goes on to say that if I want to critique his world-view, I should “go after the materialism, not the empiricism. I use empiricism as a tool to understand the world around me. Materialism would be a better world-view to attack.” Again, this comment suggests that Kel views empiricism as a method rather than an epistemology, suggesting that I’ve poured my arguments into a bucket with no bottom.
Hmnph…..
Still your evidence for your illusionary god. What a dishonorable godbot. Either prove your god or go away. Those are to two honorable choices. Put up or shut up. To stay and lie is not an honorable choice. You are bearing false witness against your alleged god.
It is bad form to resurrect a dead thread. Godbots and creobots do it regularly. It must be a character flaw.
For almost a hundred posts now we’ve been saying that bucket has a hole in it, you kept repeating the problem of induction over and over again despite people trying to show that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Like I’ve said repeatedly, I understand my worldview isn’t perfect. I’ve never claimed it to be. There are problems with truly knowing anything, and empiricism is the best means we have to find that out. Again, this doesn’t make your worldview any more valid, and I’m surprised you think by tearing down something that people aren’t arguing for that your worldview suddenly becomes a valid alternative. I repeatedly asked you to explain why yours is right as opposed to others being wrong, and it seemed time and time again that your worldview is valid upon the process of elimination. Too bad it doesn’t work on the process of credulity to anyone who wasn’t indoctrinated into it.
But you can complain you were mislead if you want, if it makes you feel better that you failed to listen to multiple people here who saw through your facade. All that was asked of you was to provide evidence for your worldview. You were asked over and over to provide evidence, all we got was your personal opinion that your worldview is consistent while ours was not. Given that you couldn’t see our points, your opinion is not at all credulous.
Don’t take the creationist approach, even if you destroy evolution, it doesn’t make creationism any more valid. This is the point several of us tried to ram home to you, but you ignored it and went on about the problem of induction again and again and again and again. If you want to show your worldview is valid, provide positive evidence to do so. Otherwise you are no better than a creationist.
Doh!, since the Rev. is on vacation, I seem to be leading in the typos department.
I meant to say “Still no evidence for your illusionary god.”
Most religionists don’t seem to be able to grasp how the scientific mind works. Philosophical meanderings are meaningless. Either show the physical evidence for your proposition, be it god, creationism, or whatever, or just don’t talk about it. It’s not that hard of an idea to comprehend.
Except that you’re actually Humpty-Dumpty, you hypocrite.
If you don’t know that you’re using words in ways that are confusing, inconsistent, and obfuscatory, you are no doubt insane.
Wag your tail much when angry, I suppose?
John, if you don’t understand the way that empiricism is used, how can you argue against it? It seems you just jumped on the use of the word and from there tried to disassemble your own understanding of it with no regard for the application of empiricism beyond philosophy. The problem with your worldview is that you neglect the role of empiricism where it’s needed because you apply it to situations where it isn’t.
The price of my education in philosophy is to be called a troll, ignorant, and hopeless. Such is my thanks for asking serious questions. These pointless insults would sting more if they came from people who seemed to know (1) what empiricism is, (2) what the problem of induction is, (3) what the egocentric predicament is, (4) what the refutation of the empiricist concept of formation is, or (5) why these things matter.
But back to Kel’s question…
Can I go after materialism rather than empiricism? Up to a point, yes, but materialism is not a world-view. A world-view needs a metaphysical system (like materialism) and an epistemological system (like empiricism) in order to be complete. (It also needs an ethical system, but more on that later.) So with Kel I need to address the synthesis of empiricism & materialism.
One reason for addressing the epistemological standards of empiricism is very simple. People keep demanding “proof” of God’s existence or of Christian theism. (Interestingly, as I pointed out at the very beginning of this exchange, no one here has given me any “proof” of his world-view. That has yet to change.) But what standard are you using to evaluate the evidence? What counts as evidence?
This question is central to the debate, as it is to many seemingly “empirical” debates. For example, if mere statistical disparity is evidence of discrimination, as many left-liberals implicitly argue, then Asian Americans are successfully discriminating against whites, blacks, and Hispanics in fields like science & engineering (among others). The deterrence debate is another case where muddied conceptual issues can render empirical evaluation pointless.
Back to the question…
What counts as evidence? How is it evaluated? What is our yardstick?
If the yardstick is faulty, then the measurements may be false. If the metaphorical yardstick used to judge Christian theism is faulty, then the perceived failings proclaimed by the denizens of this site may have no merit.
Well, if empiricism is the yardstick, then the measurements cannot be trusted. Even empiricism cannot measure up to its own standard. The claim, “All knowledge is based on sense perception” cannot be evaluated empirically. One cannot see knowledge, and even if one could, even then one could not see all knowledge. Since empiricism is self-defeating, using empiricism as the standard to evaluate Christian theism (or Hinduism or Kantianism or Platonic Idealism) is absurd.
This problem is why I have focused serious attention on the many problems of empiricism as an epistemology. Sound philosophical foundations of empirical methods cannot be found in empiricism.
Heeeee’s back!
This time with more comedy than ever.
My challengers keep using confusing words! Are you serious, idiot?
Put up or shut up.
It must be the ‘put up’ that confounds you, because you certainly refuse to shut up.
Which, Gentle Reader, is more appropriate: the spit take or the Picard facepalm?
Kel writes: I’m surprised you think by tearing down something that people aren’t arguing for that your world-view suddenly becomes a valid alternative.
Pretty much what I’ve wanted to tell Owlmirror all along.
Philosophical/theological arguments show or prove nothing. Words can be twisted to mean many things. Physical evidence is different matter. If you have a letter with the signature “god”, and the signature is always in flames, but the paper isn’t destroyed, or it can folded up and reopened with the same results at a later time, it might be proof of god. The letter needs to be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to show it is not a trick, or it can’t be replicated by natural means. If it can’t be explained, it could be one piece of evidence for god. There would need to be more. I don’t see what your problem is with physical proof. A very simple concept.
Then, again, there is no physical proof to back your arguments. That might be your real problem.
Oh goody! John you want to know what I would consider as proof. No problem big boy.
I will take as proof any of the old or new testament proofs of god/jesus. Let jesus show up in person and walk across the Columbia River. Let god make the sun stand still. If jesus can raise the dead, I’d like my grand parents, and all my pets back please. We have plenty of asses in my county, start making them talk. Turn me into a pillar of salt. Turn the moon to blood.
See John, I’m easy to convince. Put up or shut up.
And there he goes again.
Who is to say it’s complete? There are so many things I don’t know and are probably unknowable. But it’s better if the system got what we can know right rather than being complete. I don’t know where the universe came from if indeed it came from anywhere, I cannot adequately explain consciousness more than just on a superficial level (it stems from brain function), but I would much prefer to be humble in the face of the unknown than talk with absolute certainty about the nature of a being that simply doesn’t fit the constraints of reality. Christianity is full of empirical questions, God likes to interact with Earth and most specifically with us. Yet you talk about Christianity being a complete worldview when there is nothing empirical to suggest it’s validity? That it has in it’s core doctrine physical impossibilities and contradictions of everything we know about reality?
Morality is a social construct, though I look forward to you bringing the Christian view of morality and ethics to the table. I’m going to bet now that it doesn’t match the empirical evidence we have of morality, that all you are doing to do is shove God into holes he need not be in. After all, “we hate god and those who honor god”
Well Christian theism does pose many real world events, it’s what many Christians use as proof that it’s real. Yet when asking for any evidence whatsoever of these divine interventions, we get nothing. What’s the proof Jesus resurrected?
An all-powerful God can’t regrow a limb on the command of a prayer?
Empiricism has had a pretty good track record so far. I refer you again to the computer, it’s a fascinating device. If we didn’t understand electron flow, electromagnetic force, conductivity and semiconducting material, how different compounds work, and having a precise understanding of how mathematics ties it all, we would not be having this conversation now. Empiricism works because it’s a self-correcting system. What does Christian theology have? Raving madmen playing a game of chinese whispers at a time when God played the weatherman.
Again, you miss the point of falsification. Like I’ve been saying all along, a statement like that can be falsified. All it takes is one example of perception without senses and that statement is wrong. But of course you ignore that, you’ve ignored that over and over to make the same mute point about the problem of induction.
If you have something better than empiricism, bring it to the table! It’s by no means perfect, everyone here has been saying it’s by no means perfect. But it is as we speak the most practical tool we have for determining reality.
You wanted to tell Owlmirror off for something you’ve been doing yourself?
(I’ll admit that I haven’t been following what I thought was a long abandoned thread — and don’t wish to read almost 600 posts — but I thought I’d jump in anyway.)
John Knight #583 wrote:
I don’t think that empiricism is ‘self-defeating’ so much as the demand for justification for it is self-defeating. The concept of ‘justifying something’ implies a pre-existing epistomological background. If I understand you correctly, it seems to me that you’re borrowing assumptions which belong to a concept (‘we need evidence for our beliefs’) in order to undermine that very concept. Not a legitimate move, I think.
The problem of induction is only a serious problem if the standard is absolute certainty. We can only have absolute certainty on unambiguous, self-contained, self-confined analytical claims (ie math), or on uninterpreted, self-evident givens of experience (that is, I can be sure I exist, though I can’t be 100% sure in what form and detail I exist.)
Pragmatic reliance, open to correction, and confirmed to varying degrees of certainty, is all we have on anything — and good enough. Though it won’t allow one to be ‘certain’ of God — if that’s your standard.
What counts as evidence for “God” is going to depend on what “God” is supposed to be. Since definitions of God range all over the board and back again — sometimes it is a spiritual person, sometimes it is another word for existence, sometimes it is an emotional sense, and sometimes it is all of this, and more (or less) — I can’t answer the question.
Do you have a clear definition?
Kel writes:
And as for morality? I can’t think of a worse book for people to derive morality from it.
This statement is inconsistent with materialism. In a materialistic universe, there are no objective universal standards for morality. Therefore, there is no objective basis for calling one sourcec of moral teching “better” or “worse” than any other.
The problem of induction is only a serious problem if the standard is absolute certainty.
Untrue.
Just because morality is not handed down by a divine source, it doesn’t mean we live in a world of moral subjectivism. Morality is a social construct, it’s derived from our individual sense of right and wrong (an evolved trait) and put together with our social interactions. Morality is provisional, it changes as the social environment changes.
John, you work in absolutes far too much.
The bible is not a book for morality. If you truly read it, like I have twice, you have god and people doing any number of vile acts that today we consider improper today, like slavery, giving your virgin daughters to crowds to make them go away, or a prophet calling upon bears to eat children who made fun of his bald head. Not any god or people I care to emulate, or would like anyone else to emulate.
Morality starts with determining how we want to be treated, and then treating other people that way. This has a theoretical basis with game theory as being a very good strategy.
John Knight #593:
Can you give an example of a conclusion drawn from evidence/experience which is not only flawed, but which no new evidence or experience could correct?
Owlmirror has evidently never heard of the “principle of charity” in interpretation. He does not apply it to my posts or to Scripture. Instead, he commits the Strawman Fallacy.
John, back up. Until you prove god, scripture is just a fiction. Put up or shut up.
Prove it.
Kel – Before I get too swozzeled, or pissed off at John for being a complete ASS, let me compliment you on being a great poster this month! I watch for your comments, as well as all the Molly winners. Well done!
Of course he has. He knows it by its proper name: the fallacy of special pleading.
I’m giving you all the charity you deserve John. I ask you for nothing new of god. I’ll take the biblical proofs.
God has appeared on earth, to humans before, he walked and talked with Adam in the garden, why won’t he come and talk to us now? Surely we need god more than ever. If jesus will have mercy on us, shouldn’t he do it now?
The Vatican is standing, the pope is on his throne, why doesn’t god appear?
Awww shucks. Thanks Patrica :)
John Knight – You may as well kiss your stupid christian ass goodbye. Owlmirror is a Molly winner, and they are rarely bested by damn fools like you.
You can’t win on science here.
You can’t win on bible quotin’. You’re screwed dude, buzz off.
Kel writes:
On the contrary, if morality is merely a social construct, then it is subjective. If morality is a social construct, then there is no objective basis for saying that the moral norms of Nazi Germany are worse than the social norms of modern America or contemporary Sweden.
Nerd, Patricia: You have yet to prove that your world-view is true. Put up or shut up.
Kel: If you’re not an empiricist, then what is your epistemology?
Probabilism or inductive reasoning can show neither that its required assumption (that nature is uniform) is known with certainty nor that it is even probably true, for in that case it would offer an inductive argument in order to warrant the very premise needed to warrant inductive argumentation.
John, see the Null Hypothesis. I’m sure you’d agree that in all probability we do exist. That we are of the species homosapien, and we sit on a 4.5 billion year old rock that is part of a universe at least 3 times as old. Are you going to deny we exist and play a game of constructivist? Or would you agree that we all exist in this reality, and from there questions of what else in this reality are what is to play. We can all agree we exist, we are talking about an external being to our existence, God. What evidence of God do you have beyond the null hypothesis or that couldn’t be applied to any other quasi-deity or supernatural entity? Why the Christian God and not Thor? Why Jesus and not Krishna? Why the holy spirit instead of the invisible pink unicorn? Why the talking snake instead of the rainbow serpent? Why anything instead of nothing?
John, you are proposing the existence of an unseen entity, surely you are going to have something more than “Well you can’t prove he’s not there” to substanciate your absolute certainty.
John, John you lousy liar. You are the one trying to promote your world view on us. As a result, you are considered wrong until you prove yourself right. So far, you have done a miserable job of it. Your approach is to believe you are right until we prove you wrong. That is a complete inverse of what you must do. That makes you a lousy liar for Jebus. You always have the option of going away and never posting her again. Now, if you want us to believe your world view, show us the physical evidence or you go away. Which is it going to be?
Owlmirror writes: You have no knowledge of God whatsoever outside of what is told in the “revelation”, or story.
You’re begging the question. Try again.
Love the use of the either / or fallacy there. If it’s not commanded by God, then it has to be subjective. Of course we can condemn nazi germany, just as they can condemn us. But that misses the point of what morality it is, it seems that your version of a moral system is like the Creationist idea of a transitional fossil. It’s like you are asking “where’s the crocoduck?”. Well there isn’t one because you are asking the wrong questions.
Morality is societally subjective, but not indivual. And we can damn well condemn any and all societies that aren’t like us, this is where the use of ethics comes in. Instead of just saying “they are wrong”, we have to justify it with normative reasoning. Rights and duties, consequentialism, deontology; while we can never get an absolute agreement on right and wrong across culture or even on an individual level, you miss the point to even consider that is how morality works.
Are you going to stop making assumptions about a worldview you don’t understand? This is just like arguing with a creationist, you have a set idea of how things work and your faulty reasoning shines out. It’s quite pathetic to watch because you obviously do have at least a semi-functioning brain. It’s just you’ve rationalised away false dichonomies, you’ve made either/or fallacies, justified tautologies, and believe in the incredulous as if it were fact. Just a creationist in philosophers clothing.
Owlmirror lies….
Liar. I explained why the claim is self-contradictory. If you have too much mud in your ears to listen to the argument, don’t bother replying.
Kel writes: You are misunderstanding the nature of empiricism. And like I’ve said, if you have a better way of measuring reality, show it!
I am defining empiricism exactly the way that philosophers define the term. And you are begging the question. You assume that all reality is material, and that “measuring reality” is the sum total of all knowledge.
I asked (re the ‘problem of induction’): Can you give an example of a conclusion drawn from evidence/experience which is not only flawed, but which no new evidence or experience could correct?
John Knight #608 wrote:
I think this is meant to be a response to my question.
First, inductive reasoning doesn’t require the assumption that ‘nature is uniform’ in every sense. If it did, then we would not be able to incorporate some of the counter-intuitive and highly irregular results of quantum mechanics into physics, and we are. All that’s really required is a basic assumption that, under the exact same circumstances, there will be the exact same results. We cannot always know circumstances with that sort of accuracy. Thus, the need to revise given new evidence.
Again, it seems to me that the illegitimate move is not in offering an inductive argument to support inductive arguments in general, but in demanding ‘justification’ for ‘justification’ in the first place. You’re assuming what you’re trying to undermine.
It’s a bit like someone saying to Bob “Bob, I don’t believe you are real. I want you to provide me with some evidence you ARE real. Only it better not be you providing the evidence, because then I’d have to assume you’re real in order to accept it, and I don’t think you ARE!”
In this hypothetical scenario, Bob is not the one with the problem.
An exchange:
This is sad.
“Justification” is not material. It does not exist in the brain. And it certainly cannot be subjected to empirical measurement. Sorry, but empiricism as an epistemology really is self-defeating.
Like I’ve said repeatedly, show me it’s not all material. This is what falsification does, but of course you will ignore that again and go on about begging question again. But herein lies the problem. We as humans are made up entirely of matter, every little piece of us is made up of atomic particles. If there is a part that isn’t, show it. Falsify my statement. That’s all you have to do is falsify what I said any my entire argument is in the water. What about us cannot be explained by the interaction of matter in the manner of the four fundamental forces? Show me one thing on the human body that cannot possibly be the result of the laws of nature.
Hey Nerd, we’re famous now – another idiot has noticed us.
But again you fail John.
I ask you for no more proof than the bible claims. I was a christian for 50 years. Unlike you, I have read the bible. I know what gods actions are.
Science has proven there was no flood. Fossils, John. Science has proved that mankind did not walk with dinosaurs. I don’t assert that there is a god, I say you have nothing to present to prove your point. Ass.
How do you explain fossils? Shit, I’m feelin’ real charitable tonight, how do you explain the Sphinx?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8311021@N03/2331862131/
If you destroy parts of the brain, you lose cognitive abilities. They are gone, lost forever. Our thoughts, our memories, our reasoning abilities are all functionality of the brain. Injure it and face the consequences. Lose power and that’s it, you as you know yourself is over. Once you are braindead, you aren’t going to be alive anymore. It’s a wholly material organ that works on a material way.
You really are no better than a creationist, you just ignore the science that doesn’t fit into your worldview.
Owlmirror either dishonestly or very stupidly misrepresents the Christian view of knowledge. He quotes the following passage to “show” that Christianity does not value knowledge:
Well? Where is the “wise man” of this world? Where is the scribe or debater who can defend his world-view? Owlmirror certainly hasn’t made a case for his world-view.
Yes, God was well-pleased to save those who believe through the preaching that others see as mere foolishness. So?
John, John, you really don’t get it. We don’t have to defend our world view to you. Who are you to ask about that anyway? What are your credentials? Are you god?
Remember, you came to this site, so you have to defend and prove yourself. As I have repeatedly stated, you do a piss poor job of it. If you can’t prove god, there is no scripture. Only after proving god and the scripture being the word of god can we talk about god given morality. You are stuck at proving god.
Your god doesn’t exist. We don’t have to bow down to your imaginary sky ghost. You make yourself look less than intelligent twisting words to get there. Learn how to deal with atheist and no god.
John, give it up. You are an argument in insipidity who is doing nothing to justify their own worldview, instead attack those of others. Basically it’s like taking the statement “all cars are red”, then finding one that is not red then concluding “all cars are blue”. You still haven’t given any evidence for how you believe and why it’s it’s even slightly valid. We at least can see the functionality and construction of empiricism, there are plenty of devices now that require an intimate understanding of the material means of nature in order to operate. What do you have? “It’s not perfect, therefore Christianity is”, nevermind that Christianity encroaches on areas that are empirically testable.
Is that why you are so hard on empiricism? Is it because the historical event that was Jesus doesn’t stay an article of faith? Might it be that proof beyond eyewitness accounts is needed for events that are outside the norm of reality? Or is it because you simply want to keep your delusion, under the impression that your God is the only way to look at reality when you can’t even provide even slight justification that Christian metaphysics is any more valid than pastafarianism metaphysics?
Owlmirror worships scientism, but abandons knowledge.
No, you stupid moron troll. I watch House, too. MRIs show brain activity, not knowledge.
Calling something “knowledge” requires a normative judgment. How can you observe a normative quality? How can you know that brain activity really is knowledge?
Where are the adults? Is this just a place to “bash them nigg…. [I]um,[/I] Christians” or does anyone want a grown-up conversation?
“In all probability we exhist”.
That is so damned funny I about wet myself.
And your proof of that is? er…well we’re all here, we’re at least half drunk, and we are enjoying the experience of breathing.
Some of us are going to share our biological resources with another live being – and god participates how?
Owlmirror worships scientism, but abandons knowledge.
No, you stupid moron troll. I watch House, too. MRIs show brain activity, not knowledge.
Calling something “knowledge” requires a normative judgment. How can you observe a normative quality? How can you know that brain activity really is knowledge?
Where are the adults? Is this just a place to “bash them nigg…. um, Christians” or does anyone want a grown-up conversation?
Because, if you destroy parts of the brain, you lose certain abilities.
Basically, it’s like looking on a computer handdrive and finding lots of 1s and 0s. Because we can’t map those individual bits of data to anything meaningful, we conclude that the computer must not store the information. That’s your argument in a nutshell. But the fact is that if we destroy the harddrive, we destroy the data. Just as if we destroy the brain, we destroy the knowledge.
John, Patricia and I have given you some examples that might help you prove your god. Good physical evidence that does not require fast talking to be believed. You are rather loath to show such evidence. That weakens you argument to point that we consider everything you say to be a lie. You need to rebuilt your credibility, but that requires some physical evidence.
If you are sentient, you should see that you are in over your head. We have refuted everything you have presented and you refuse to acknowledge the refutations. You do have the ability to quit posting here. Think hard about that option.
John Knight #625 wrote:
It seems to me that you’re assuming that abstractions (and judgments) are mind-dependent, and therefore either cannot be physical, or cannot be explained in a material universe.
Is this it?
Owlmirror lies:
Nope, sorry, not what I said.
I pointed out that empiricism as a theory of knowledge is self-refuting.
Additionally, it cannot overcome the egocentric predicament, the problem of induction or several other challenges.
Therefore, world-views with empiricist epistemological commitments are not a viable alternative to Christian theism.
Very, very different. As any honest person will acknowledge.
1 Any idea without physical evidence cannot be proven and doesn’t exist
2 There is no physical evidence for any god
3 Therefore, god doesn’t exist.
How honest are your John? Your god doesn’t exist, Time to stop believing in him.
Fuck you John. By DNA I am a Bantu, therefore a nigger. I resent your comment, you racist bastard. On behalf of all the green eyed, blonde haired, and lilly white Bantu’s of this world I call you a racist asshole John. Fuck you.
You loose John. You can’t prove your bible, and now you pull the race card. Idiot.
Are you under the delusion that Christian theism is the default?!?
Just like the creobots. If evilution is no true, they are.
A rather dishonest approach.
PERSECUTION!!! PERSECUTION!!! Everyone is persecuting me because they don’t accept that Christianity is the only viable metaphysical worldview despite me posting no evidence to support that and worming around saying something meaningful to support it.
John Knight #629 wrote:
And I have pointed out that one has to assume empiricism in order to ‘challenge’ empiricism in the first place.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You did not point anything out. You have simply asserted it. The fact that you will not go into the details and your “arguments” consist of repeating yourself over and over show, empirically, that you’re full of shit.
John Knight – PZ is going to get around to you, you idiot. Your racist bullshit is beyond the pale.
What the hell are you doing here?
We are against sexism, racism and damned foolism. You are a racist damned fool. Go where you are appreciated. Idiot.
Everyone except John Knight is right. He shows nothing. He has no proof. He is a racist, and full of shit.
Trot out your god John.
What a piss poor christian John is. I could argue ten times better than he does. Sissy!
Come on boy, trot out jesus or shut the fuck up.
Er … I don’t think John Knight’s remark was racist. He was making an analogy to racism. The mere use of the “n” word (or near use) doesn’t entail racism in all and every context.
Hey, I’m up for a grown-up, adult conversation!
How ’bout them Phillies?
(semantic philosophical sophistry in service of xtianity? nah.)
Yeah, it wasn’t racist. He was just trying to paint us as bigots. Remember, it’s the same guy who said this:
You guys hate God & hate people who try to honor God. And you are willing to twist logic to justify your hostility.
He’s losing the argument so he’s playing the persecution card.
awww… I’m trying to tilt my head and squit my eyes to see it your way Sastra.
Kel #641 wrote:
It may come with the territory. I haven’t read through the whole thread, but Mr. Knight seems to be using a version (several versions) of a form of apologetics called presuppositionalism. The philosophical conundrums and handwaving cover a basic assumption about the debate ‘opponent.’
From a Christian pre-sup website:
A Presuppositionalist “does not try to “prove” that God exists or that the Bible is true. He holds to the Faith because the Bible says so, not because he can “prove” it. He does not try to convince the unconverted that the gospel is true. They already know it is true when they hear it. They need repentance, not evidence… He does not defend “natural theology,” and other inventions designed to find some agreement with covenant-breaking apostate mankind.”
Of course, that’s from the Chalcedon Foundation, and I don’t think Knight is that far gone.
Typo in #633, I meant to say “if evilution is not true…”. I also screwed up the formating for #630. I appear to channelling the Rev in his absence.
I think the whole exercise did not turn out a John expected. I think he thought he could waltz in here with a line of logic/philosophy, and get us to agree with him. He thought if he maintained his beliefs, we would eventually fall into his way of seeing things. But we kept demanding evidence he knew he was incapable of showing, and it frustrated the jebus out of him.
John, if you come back, we will start out where we left off. That is proving that your god exists with some physical evidence.
Thank you for bringing that up Kel.
Damn straight I hate god. I hate god for hanging my grannies and aunties. I hate god for condemning me to hell because I like to fuck. I hate god for sending me into an eternal lake of fire because I want to get drunk and eat a fine meal. Piss on god. God is an asshole.
Nerd of Redhead #644 wrote:
Oh, I expect it did. He hoped to frustrate us, and succeeded. But, if so, it does not mean, what he thinks it means.
That seems a pretty good assessment of how this thread went down. Any time I asked anything specific about his beliefs or how he came to them was ignored for the option of talking about the problem of induction. I’ve asked multiple times for him to show any indicator whatsoever that he has a good reason for using what he does to understand the world, it just gets ignored too.
John’s obviously an experienced debater. Unfortunately (for him) this isn’t a classroom – and all the philosophical tap-dancing in the world won’t change that.
That he can construct a philosophical defence of xinanity is one thing; but it’s statements like this that I find staggering:
If this is his genuine opinion and not rhetoric, it’s indicative of a profound self-delusion, one beyond that of the everyday religulous.
I’m about to turn in for the night.
But John just doesn’t cut it.
He won’t back up his bullshit with the bible.
Come on John, you got dragons and unicorns on your side.
It’s amazing just how indepth someone can construct a philosophical statement that concludes with the non-answer of Goddidit.
Indeed. As I’ve mentioned on threads past, I want to make one of those ‘motivational’ posters that goes something like this
[picture maybe of some long-winded book justifying religious belief]
Apologetics
Because when you believe without evidence
you have to console yourself somehow.
Kel asks: Are you under the delusion that Christian theism is the default?!?
No. Are you under the delusion that there is a default? All world-views bear the burden of proof. So far, I’ve seen no evidence for yours.
Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Faith” would probably work there.
You agree that my worldview exists. We are all in agreeance here that the material world does indeed exist. Do you think the computer you are typing on is not real? Do you think it’s not material? Do you think it doesn’t work by material laws? You are propsing an extension to the world we know, you have the burden of proof.
And again, what makes your worldview of metaphysics any better than the metaphysics of pastarafianism? Why is your God one which is monotheistic, but in 3 forms: the father, the son and the holy ghost? Why isn’t your God a giant spaghetti monster? How do you know that god is the Christian God?
John Knight writes: Calling something “knowledge” requires a normative judgment. How can you observe a normative quality? How can you know that brain activity really is knowledge?
Kel replies: Because, if you destroy parts of the brain, you lose certain abilities.
But that fact tells us nothing about whether brain activity corresponds to true beliefs or false beliefs. Nor does it give us anyway to distinguish between warranted bel;ief & unwarranted belief.
No, you cannot see knowledge as knowledge. Not with a thousand MRIs.
John Knight’s argument in a nutshell
1. There are problems with empiricism
2. Therefore Jesus died for our sins and rose on the 3rd day to be at one with his father [who happens to be himself]
Kel writes: You agree that my world-view exists. We are all in agreement here that the material world does indeed exist.
Believing in a material world does not mean believing in materialism. Believing in empirical methods does not mean believing in empiricism.
Kel, you’re not ready for an argument. You just want to play Texas sharpshooter.
And you’re ticked that I won’t play your game.
John Knight wrote:
The only game you’re playing, John, is the philosophical equivalent of three-card monty with a minor variation: there’s no red ball, no cards, and no table; we’re left with only your insistence that a) a god exists and b) it’s your xian god.
John Knight writes:
Kel replies: Love the use of the either / or fallacy there. If it’s not commanded by God, then it has to be subjective.
Not what I said. It may be true, but it’s not what I said.
I said that if morality is a merely a social construct, then it must be subjective. God was not mentioned.
Of course we can condemn Nazi Germany, just as they can condemn us.
So? Is Nazi Germany objectively wrong? Not if morality is merely a social construct.
But that misses the point of what morality it is, it seems that your version of a moral system is like the Creationist idea of a transitional fossil. It’s like you are asking “where’s the crocoduck?” Well there isn’t one because you are asking the wrong questions.
I’m asking the wrong question? How so? Says who?
Morality is societally subjective, but not [individually].
Says who?
And we can damn well condemn any and all societies that aren’t like us, this is where the use of ethics comes in. Instead of just saying “they are wrong”, we have to justify it with normative reasoning.
And a materialist has no basis for talking about objective norms.
Rights and duties, consequentialism, deontology; while we can never get an absolute agreement on right and wrong across culture or even on an individual level, you miss the point to even consider that is how morality works.
How so? Says who?
Patricia writes: All that’s really required is a basic assumption that, under the exact same circumstances, there will be the exact same results.
…An assumption that cannot be proven empirically…
So my point stands.
“The problem of induction exists”
True, it can be construed as a “problem” if one regards pedantic appeals to circularity “problems”. You will note, however, that a similar problem (method of reaching a conclusion cannot recursively prove its reliability) also applies to deduction, abduction, etc. It’s a non-starter to argue against empiricism with this nonsense.
Patricia writes:
This is actually in interesting reply, but it makes a simple confusion. It confuses “justification” with a particular standard of justification. Humean empiricists have different criteria for justification than Hegelian rationalists, and as an Augustinian, I have criteria that are still different. How should we choose between such different standards? Doesn’t that choice need to be justified?
“How should we choose between such different standards? Doesn’t that choice need to be justified?”
The same we choose anything, we use methods which yield the best results (best being a domain specific measure which, in science, usually amounts to the predictive value of a specific theory about the natural world).
Nerd writes:
That’s like saying that the lack of “good physical evidence” for laws of logic proves that logic does not exist. Logicians must be con men (by your reasoning).
“That’s like saying that the lack of “good physical evidence” for laws of logic proves that logic does not exist. Logicians must be con men (by your reasoning).”
So God is a formal, abstract entity rather than a being with a physical manifestation? Not following your comparison here.
How we distinguish between true and false beliefs is still done inside the materialistic organ that is the brain.
Says who? Not the evolutionary psychologists who actually study this.
No, I’m ticked that you’re whole argument strategy is tearing down the other’s argument and having yours win by default. You aren’t providing anything to support your worldview, you are just playing a semantic game where you are contextualising meanings of words so anyone who argues against you is bound to contradict themselves.
Even if you show empiricism to be limited (which everyone here freedly admits), it doesn’t make your view any less absurd. The fact that you won’t answer any questions on your belief while everyone here has answered everything you’ve come up with just shows you to be an intellectual coward, a worm who can’t put their own beliefs under the scrutiny they do for others. Why do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus? Why do you believe in the holy trinity and virgin birth? Surely they are empirical questions, they are historical events and statements on the nature of reality. How do you know God? But of course you won’t answer, you are an intellectual imposter, a fraud, a charlatan. You hate reason and those who attempt to use it. You twist meaning in order to justify your own incompetence.
I’ve answered all you’ve asked of me, you’ve answered nothing anyone here has asked of you. Coward!
See here for why Knight is full of shit.
Believing in a material world does not mean believing in materialism. Believing in empirical methods does not mean believing in empiricism.
//Indecipherable Rhetoric//
here, it’s simple, even for you, sir black knight:
show us how one can test a supernatural hypothesis. for that matter, show us how to even formulate such a hypothesis to begin with.
I’ll save you the trouble: you can’t.
ergo you’re wanking.
btw, as long as you’re so obviously wanking, I suggest you ditch the fucking “materialist” jargon. It’s entirely made up and useless.
So you agree that materialism and empiricism have their place in understanding the world? Good. We are on the same page then. What more is there, and how do you know so?
Feel free to point out where anyone – on this site, or on any other – is making the claim that logic created the universe. Or that logic can heal the sick, bring the dead to life, make it rain, banish demons, turn water into wine, answer prayers, turn people into pillars of salt, make asses talk and set bushes alight…need I go on?
Logic needs no physical evidence to exist because no-one claims it has ever existed or acted in any physical sense – unlike your god. Or are you claiming, as Tyler mentions above, that your god is a ‘formal, abstract entity’ which has never, and can never, enter or affect the physical realm?
Kel rants:
Nope, not persecution. Just immaturity.
And trying to discuss foundational philosophical issues is not “worming around.” It is seeking clarity. Sorry if you’re not used to having your assumptions challenged.
[Sheesh. I go out for an errand and come back to find that Knight is wriggling all over the chessboard, going from black to white and back again as it suits his needs.]
Maybe you had just a wee bit too much education, and not enough actual thinking.
Nuts. You’re the one ignorant of empiricism — as you’ve demonstrated empirically.
Your predicament is that you have too damn much ego, you pompous overstuffed blowhard.
You mean, the self-refuting refutation.
Your incoherence is incoherent.
By your own philosophy, nothing matters. You naughty annihilating nihilist.
God speaking for himself and demonstrating his alleged attributes personally.
Knowledge not based on sense perception cannot be evaluated, period.
Deliberate misconstruing of “All”. 40 yard penalty.
Which I suppose is why you’re seeking to find them up your own butt?
Actually, it is Christianity that has no objective universal standard for morality; it’s the ultimate in moral relativism.
The materialistic basis of morality is itself based on an empirical understanding of actions and consequences. Without that, you have no basis of morality anyway.
Liar.
Consensus on morality is not completely subjective, any more than scientific consensus itself is.
The former is based on falsifiable and empirical understanding of actions and consequences, just as scientific knowledge is based on falsifiable and empirical understanding of experimental demonstrations.
The only part that is entirely subjective is an individual actually caring about what the consequences of actions are.
The moral norms of Nazi Germany were far closer to those of religion than to anything else.
Just as their rejected an empirical approach to science, they also rejected an empirical approach to morality. As I said, not too different from theists.
And lo, I did pray unto the almighty God, who knoweth all things, and can do all things, and I asked the LORD, “Oh God, who knoweth all things, doth John Knight speak sooth, or doth he pull that which is false from out of his fundament?” And the LORD did answer me: “Hearken unto me! I speak justified truth unto you when I say, John Knight hath no knowledge of Me or My works. Indeed, John Knight knoweth not true from false, and knoweth not that he knoweth not. He is a fool and a liar, and is like unto the sewage farm, full of stinking shit. So say I, the almighty and eternal LORD, who knoweth all things!”
There you go. I now have justified true belief from God, the only impeccable source of justified true belief, that you don’t have justified true belief about God.
QED.
Liar. I explained why your explanation was self-contradictory.
Liar.
Liar.
Liar.
Paul did not, and neither do you.
The wise men of whom he spoke were the Greek philosophers. Remember what happened to them? They weren’t exactly treated very nicely by the Christians…
So, finally, even you acknowledge that Christianity is indeed foolishness.
You simply don’t care that it is, which is the problem. And all of your evasive maneouvers are the deployment of pathetic and fallacious sophistry in the defense of foolishness.
However, something that Christians forget is that God either changed his mind about what he told the Jews, or hid information from the Jews.
In which case, you are now in the exact same place now that the Jews were then: You have no way of knowing that God did not change his mind again, or hide information from Christians.
Sorry, the title of “stupid moron” belongs to you, not me.
Remember 1 Corinthians? The Greek for “foolishness” is μωρίαν, or transliterated, morian. Or in other words, from the same Greek root as “moron“.
Oh, and you’re definitely a “troll” as well. Troll.
Uh-huh. And what knowledge exists without brain activity?
I concede that in your specific case, brain activity is not knowledge. Your brain is apparently active, but there’s no knowledge that correlates to the bullshit you spout.
It is a pure and vitalistic aetheric vapor indistinguishable from the ravings of a crazy person.
Oh, the irony. You want to be treated like an adult, and you play the victim card?
You whiny petulant spoiled little insufferable brat.
And I (and others) pointed out that your refutation was self-refuting. Want to try again?
Problems whose solution limits can be approached by falsification, and consensus, and by skepticism (NOT PYRRHONISM, YOU PATHETIC MISCONSTRUING GIT).
You mean Christian theism is not a viable alternative to falsifiable skeptical empiricism.
Because Christian theism is make-believe.
I will have to pull out my collection of articles on psychology and neurology that refer to the neural correlates of telling the truth and lying…
And of course, the only way to determine whether the belief actually is true or false, in the real world, is… empirical demonstration of the facts of that belief. Hah.
Of course, I grant that some beliefs may be true but unverifiable, or false and unfalsifiable.
But Christianity qua Christianity is not among those beliefs.
Liar.
And you can’t even keep straight who you’re replying to. That was Sastra.
You really are a spoiled teenager, aren’t you, Owlmirror.
I would love a face-to-face, one-on-one, equal time debate. Your ignorance would be on display for all to see.
Quite frankly, I can’t type fast enough to correct the fallacies in this thread.
It seems you can’t type fast enough even to correct your own.
I’m fine with having my assumptions challenged, I’m not find with you worming out of answering any questions about your own assumptions. You are an intellectual coward who won’t answer any questions despite many answering yours freely. I’m surprised you can’t see your own behaviour given how much wanking you do over your own opinion.
John, you can’t argue god into existence. Either he is there and there is proof, or he doesn’t and the idea is lie. Your god doesn’t exist. Trying to argue that he does without supplying the proof makes you look simpleminded. Time to call it quits.
Johns argument summarized: I am so intelligent that all of you need to bow down to my logic. That doesn’t work here. We are as authoritative are you, even more so.
My irony meter exploded!
Nerd of Redhead wrote:
Nerd, c’mon – haven’t you read John’s posts? I mean, how can you fixate on something as trivial as that? He’s obviously a very smart man. He throws around terms like induction and epistemological and empiricism and (my favourite) egocentric predicament. Obviously, when you can toss about polysyllabics like that without fear then you don’t need anything as piddling as icky old proof or evidence or, I don’t know, reality. That’s just so pedestrian and uncivilised.
No doubt he’d happily argue about exactly how many angels can dance on the head of that pin – and probably write voluminous tracts on the precise colour of the shoes they’re wearing and throw in a thesis or two on the music that’s playing as well.
Wowbagger, big words!? Oh, I have to go and hide. Never mind that the names of some of the compounds I have made over the years run to 6-10 lines of the printed page.
Sheer logic can determine how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Or that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow. Mental masturbation for those so inclined. Something they should do in private.
A scientist like myself would first have to determine that angels exist, what size are they, what size is the pinhead, and can angels really dance. Then, and only then, can we discuss how many can dance on the head of a pin.
That’s because you use the self-refuting epistemology of empiricism. If only you believed on faith like Christians do, then you’d be able to sort true beliefs from false beliefs.
Funny that John Knight is under the impression that his study in philosophy makes him smarter than others. I came across another like that on the Richard Dawkins facebook group. He claims that he’ll become the next Newton by providing evidence of the paranormal. He’s just biding his time now, and anyone who doesn’t accept his word for it is closed minded.
John Knight #661 wrote:
Since the assumption that ‘under the exact same circumstances, there will be the exact same results” simply restates and applies A=A, we can have more confidence in this than in any other empirical assumption. Our difficulty is in knowing whether things really are exactly the same.
John Knight #663 wrote:
We resolve differences in criteria the way differences are always resolved: by seeking a standard common to both. You cannot persuade someone to change their mind by pointing out that they’re violating someone else’s beliefs. You can only do it by showing them that they’re violating their own beliefs, going against their own standards and criteria — once they understand the entire situation.
This is where humanist criteria have advantage over divine or religious criteria. It seeks an intersubjective common ground of agreement founded on human nature and a natural world. We agree on the existence of the natural world, and we share the same very basic values. There is our rock.
Without that, anything goes. You do not anchor concepts — or morals — by appealing to standards outside of common ground. Religion and religious reasoning is, by its nature, special to a few, and ‘above’ the world. It will grant an unearned certainty, and can justify what, to the secular, look like absurdities — to all but the special few.
So, finally, even you acknowledge that Christianity is indeed foolishness.
No, you lying fool. It is *perceived* as foolish: “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.”
And: “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…”
Your speculations are futile. You cannot even provide the barest justification for your knowledge claims, and you lack the integrity to admit it. You survive only in the midst of a supportive herd. Professing to be wise, you are a fool.
John, our knowledge claims are not under question. Yours are, since you are the one trying to posit your claims. And you do not defend your claims well, or at all. I don’t know what you call that, but I call it hypocricy.
Time for you to quit. You lost many posts ago.
Whoa. This thread is still going?
Does having your delusional hypocrisy and intellectual double-standards exposed always make you mad?
No, it is foolish. Because it is entirely unjustified.
O hypocritical hypocrite, let’s see how you like eating your own words:
John Knight’s speculations are futile. John Knight cannot even provide the barest justification for his knowledge claims, and he lacks the integrity to admit it. He survives only in the midst of a supportive herd. Professing to be wise, John Knight is a fool.
Oooh, ooh, ooh. Careful there, John:
“but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” -Matthew 5:22
As a dog returneth to it’s vomit, so doth a fool to his folly.
John Knight is a fool indeed.
Nice quote Laser Potato. Even with that, the damned fool bible contradicts it’s self once again. So much for the inerrant word of the all knowing god.
Should we tell lies? No! Yes! Does god ever lie? No! Yes!
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.
but on the other hand…
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
II Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Good ol’ godly John. Full of lies.
I’m convinced, John Knight is a poe. There’s no way he could say that with a straight face after avoiding any questions on his beliefs while everyone here has shown justification for theirs. Either that or he wears Jesus Glasses so thick they don’t let any light in at all.
You cannot even provide the barest justification for your knowledge claimsFunny you say that when people here actually have knowledge and you claim to have some that you can’t justify. Goddidit is not an answer, it’s avoidance; an act of intellectual cowardice.
Hm. No, I think not. That is, I think there is sufficient cause to suspect that a correlate of his intense psychological attachment to his delusion, and the mental compartmentalization that necessarily follows from that, is that he is perfectly capable of being utterly dishonest while at the same time being utterly sincere.
Sastra did manage to get a tiny little confession out of him: That, hey, some philosophers do actually have different definitions for core concepts. But of course, his own core concepts are special and privileged.
Seeing him claim to be an Augustinian inspired me to review Augustine’s philosophical life:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
(and see also:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/illumination/
)
It reminded me that Augustine was trying to reconcile some very, very conflicting ideas: The abstract and remote God of the Neoplatonians, the Middle-Eastern tribal deity Yahweh (wo was combined with the tribal deity El), the idealistic dualism of the Manicheans, and of course, the whole syncretic-Messianic-Eschatological cult mess that was Christianity. Unsurprisingly, however aesthetic some portions of the attempt may have been, the result is… not epistemologically nor logically convincing.
And of course, the Church inherited Augustine’s philosophical collection of immiscible ideas, and has nevertheless maintained steadily over the past centuries that they are indeed miscible. You just have to look at it right, in a special and charitable way.
Speaking of which…
Charity is for the impoverished. Are you really doing your arguments or scripture any favor at all by implying that they are like unto a blind legless beggar? (Perhaps with a cardboard sign reading “Lost my epistemological foundation and rational understanding. Please give.”)
Agreed, his unwillingless to open up and subject his own beliefs to that same scrutiny that he is putting on others is very much intellectually dishonest. I’m sure he doesn’t see that way, that he sees our questions as philosophically meek. Yet everyone here has been more than happy to answer his questions, the fact that he went on for over 100 posts of this thread about the epistemological problems of empiricism when everyone else was talking about pragmatism then when he finally realised that, he tried again shifting his criticism to the epistemological problems of empiricism.
He’s been asked several times to show any reasoning why his beliefs are right, he won’t give any reason why his worldview is more viable than any others; instead turning the question back on anyone who asks it. He’s not here for a discussion, he’s right (in his head) so he doesn’t have to justify his own beliefs to anyone. He can’t even say how he knows God exists, or that Jesus walks the earth. He can’t say how he knows of the virgin birth, of the holy trinity, of the resurrection, of miracles. How does he know all those? He won’t say. He’ll dump on empiricism without providing any better means to understand knowledge.
I can only imagine him in that one on one debate in front of an academic audience. It would be so funny to see him try and convince an academic crowd that he needs no jusification for his own beliefs because he sees epistemological problems in the beliefs of others. He’s the Dinesh Z’Souza of this thread.
Sastra writes (#682):
Obviously, if we are discussing two separate occasions, then things are never “exactly” the same. The time index is different. So this approach to induction is useless.
More generally, attempts to derive causation from the Law of Identity have proven unsuccessful in the history of philosophy. Such attempts involve a category error regarding the nature of the Law of Identity. As one evidence of this error, these attempts consistently lead to the conclusion that “nothing ever changes,” since the Law of Identity prevents them from changing.
Sastra writes:
Then we may be in trouble. We do not have common standards.
For example, if we were having coffee & doughnuts at some café, discussing the historical evidence for the Resurrection, would we really agree on common standards of evidence? As a materialist, you are pre-committed to the idea that claims of immaterial entities are invalid (or at least highly suspect). As a Christian, I believe that we can only use & evaluate empirical evidence because of immaterial entities. In that sense, I hold the use of empirical evidence to be evidence for immaterial entities.
The idea that materialists & Christians genuinely share common ground reflects an orientation towards discreteness in one’s philosophy: different pieces of a world-view can just be broken off randomly. But if world-views form organic wholes, with epistemologies & metaphysical systems that are interconnected, then the surface appearance of similarity should not be mistaken for genuine commonality.
Yah. That’s what I was trying to do. I was trying to explain how the epistemology professed by Kel & others here is self-refuting. Now Kel tells me that he’s not really a Humean empiricist, he’s more of a pragmatist. I assume it was a misunderstanding. I asked him if he was empiricist and what he meant by that before I began my critique of radical empiricism, but he seems not to have thought carefully about such matters heretofore, so a measure of confusion is natural.
Allegedly. (I believe Habermas advances this opinion.) So far, to my knowledge, the humanist project has failed to provide a secure basis for knowledge or for intelligibility. But I am open to suggestions.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here.
Best,
JK
Still no proof for your imaginary god. TSK, TSK. At some point you are going to have to put up or shut up on the god issue.
John Knight:
#682: Posted by: Sastra | October 20, 2008 9:10 AM
That’s 40 days ago!
John, delusional godbots love old threads, along with creobots. Just an occupational problem with them.
John Knight #692 wrote:
You’re looking for absolutes again. “Exactly” isn’t required, not in practice. If the circumstances are similar enough in the way that matters, then the results will be the same. We seek and refine points of similarity in patterns.
Well, I think we could and would agree on common standards of evidence if we were discussing supernatural claims in general — and we could apply this then to the Resurrection. As a secular humanist, I am not “pre-committed” to materialism or naturalism: those are working theories. And, as a Christian, your prior belief in God does not mean that you accept all supernatural claims at face value. As long as we are both open to the possibility that the other person could be right — and we could be wrong — we’re going to find common ground in the way we reason, the world we live in, and our commitment to discovering what’s more likely to be true.
By the way, this is a very long argument, and a very long thread, and a very old post indeed. I’m not sure how wise it is to keep this thing going here.
John, adherents of non-christian religions also make supernatural claims. Do you accept them at face value, or reject them simply because christianity is the only religion based on real supernatural claims?
The way I see it is that you are trying to define me in labels so that you can point at one and say it contradicts the other, and conclude that Jesus rose on the 3rd day.
I know my worldview is incomplete, there is so much I don’t know. You being internally consistent is irrelevant if you don’t have the evidential basis. There is much I don’t know, there are limits to how I can know. You saying you know without any demonstration of how that works with what we can know within the limits of reality just shows you to be inconsistent with criticism.
When I turn on a computer, I know that it only works because we know electromagnetic force, we know it has to work a certain way and it requires a meticulous knowledge of it working that way. Not only does it require electricity to be constant, it requires generation to be constant. Here I need a 240V AC current in order to power any of my electrical devices, I need that constant stream of electron flow. We have knowledge on how to generate electricity, and that is necessary to maintain society. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about, you are just trying to take that, say there’s a problem with induction and therefore conclude that Goddidit.
Hiya Sastra. I have come to a few conclusions.
First, Owlmirror is not even remotely interested in a conversation. He is a liar, and a blatant liar. His misrepresentation of the “principle of charity” in his last post is the most recent but not the most egregious of his lies. Ironically, his sneer regarding the principle of charity commits the Straw Man Fallacy that I was criticizing. How unintentionally kind of Owlmirror to bring the rope to his own hanging.
Second, no one has tried to reign him in. This silence suggests that most people here are more interested in scoring points on the stray theist who wanders in than in honest conversation. This conviction is strengthened by the very nature of this thread. Dinesh D’Souza is trashed for politely expressing his opinion, while PZ is praised for his blatantly rude behavior. Just because one disagrees with me or Mr. D’Souza does not mean that one is entitled to neglect basic decency with respect to me or Mr. D’Souza. And just because one generally agrees with Owlmirror or PZ does not mean that they should not be corrected when their behavior is indecent. It is hard to understand the rationalizations on behalf of PZ as anything other than expressions of social partisanship.
Third, the responses to my posts have, if anything, grown more abusive & less substantial. Long after I rejected the over-literal interpretation of the Eden story, Kel raised it as an objection to the coherence of Christianity. Maybe Kel would rather knock down Straw-Man versions of Christianity rather than engage my understanding of Christianity, but it rather inhibits rational dialogue. In general, I am unable to reply to an entire mob of partisans: Even when one does stumble onto a good question, I do not have the time for a constructive reply. Maybe if I were a better typist.
Eh, probably not.
Fourth, the most obvious exception to this pattern of anti-intellectualism has been or exchange. You have asked serious, informed questions that deserve an attempt at a reply. I must ignore the mob, given that I have other duties, but I will attempt a brief reply to your questions.
Best,
JK
Um, if that seems odd, I seem to have posted the last two posts in reverse order…
Sorry.
John Knight #700:
Ah, ok. #692 was final post then?
I’m off to bed. Thank you, and g’night.
Pray-tell, what is your amazing version of Christianity that beats the trappings of the regular version?
Kel, his version is between his ears, not somebody else’s ears. That makes it better.
All religion is a straw man argument since no good hard physical proof for god is ever shown. All the speculation that is religion is mental masturbation.
Sastra,
“Exactly” was your choice of words, not mine. We still come back to the problem of induction.
And I’m not sure we could discuss “supernatural claims in general.” That is a grouping that I don’t find useful. I naturally treat the supernatural claims of false religions with skepticism. And I take the claims of God’s revelation with confidence. The groups (or subgroups) of claims are built on radically different foundations.
Likewise, I do not accept your claim that you are not “pre-committed” to your epistemological & metaphysical claims. You may not be aware of such pre-commitments, but they are there, just because they are inevitable. (Pre-commitment per se is not inherently good or bad, just inevitable.) This inevitability has been demonstrated by Quine, by Kuhn, by Polanyi, and of course by Wittgenstein. Even Popper was forced to admit rational analysis depends on some level of pre-commitment.
As for the etiquette, I apologize. I have been on the road for the last two months, and so did not reply earlier. I thought I owed you a decent answer, since you made an attempt at thoughtful conversation. If you’d rather drop this matter, fine by me.
Best…
I’m going to guess he’s put lipstick on a pig.
My abuse of you was and is in response to and proportional to your own blatant and despicable dishonesty.
You liar.
(Re: D’Souza “politely expressing his opinion”: if accusing people of “idiocy” and “sounding like morons” is polite in your language, then I have been nothing but the very soul of politesse.)
Yeah, that’s to be expected. You’ve come on here and been highly antagonistic, you aren’t going to get a red carpet and a standing ovation. My hostility towards you is directly proportional to the futility of your rhetoric.
Act contemptuous and expect nothing but contempt in return.
Basically, what we’re asking John to do is walk in a straight line from A to B – but he refuses; he’d rather tapdance in a circle somewhere in the vicinity of points c through z, never actually stopping on a single one.
Well there’s always one place he keeps on stopping: the problem of induction. It’s his mantra. It’s like Randy Stimpson’s hang-up on Shannon Entropy in regard to evolution. You just can’t convince them otherwise, even when the problems aren’t central. Yes induction has problems, people here freely admit that. But John Knight sees any weakness of another’s method of gaining knowledge (he doesn’t apply those standards to his own) and concludes that Goddidit.
He’s come back two months later and he still hasn’t learned a damn thing.
They most certainly are not. You have given no logical argument or method whatsoever of how it is even possible to determine that some religion is “false” and what you claim is “God’s revelation” can be taken “with confidence”.
“With confidence” in what?
If you reject empirical tests… what is it that you have confidence in?
John Knight #704 wrote:
But you stood on a prior foundation of ignorance and used the tools of human understanding when you first separated true from false revelations, in your own mind. Those are claims about knowledge. A person who says to himself “I know God spoke to me” is ultimately relying on his own abilities to know God. He doesn’t get to borrow infallibility — even if he’s right, and God really did speak to him.
I agree that are some rock-bottom basic assumptions we are all forced to make (such as our own existence), and there are inferences so reasonable that disputing them is either academic or perverse (that all our senses are not deceiving us in some cosmic version of The Truman Show, for example.) But “God exists” is not among them — it’s far too complex a concept, relies on too many inferences from too many directions, and can be rationally disputed in favor of other explanations for the same experiences and evidence.
As a secular humanist, I’m committed more to method than I am to conclusions. I suppose you could say that I’m pre-committed to the assumption that I am not infallible, and that I can make subjective errors — particularly when I’m biased. I think it would be very hard — if not impossible — to persuade me that I should reconsider this, and accept instead that in at least some areas I’m perfect, and don’t need the normal checks and balances against making mistakes which I can see that other people need in the same areas.
Fortunately, even Christians don’t seem to want to talk me into thinking otherwise, so my dogma is safe.
I have no problem continuing a discussion in an old thread: it’s just that with over 700 comments it takes awhile to load, and I daresay our points are so far back they’d apply on any topic. Up to you, I guess.
In his gut, of course. Or in his “intuition”, in more refined terms. And he has confidence in his gut because he thinks that he’s figured out that I am his epistemic foundation. After all, I, in My perfect and infinite benevolence, wouldn’t let Satan lie to him, now would I?
It’s all very Cartesian.
Of course, other theists, not being as careful in figuring out that I am their epistemic foundation, can therefore be deluded by Satan into making false and superstitious claims about what they think is true about religion, damned fools that they are.
What’s funny is that these gut-trusting people don’t change even after they die. They meet Jesus in person, and they reject Jesus; they speak to Me in person, and they reject Me.
Because we don’t match what they feel in their gut.
They wander around the afterlife, convinced that it’s all just a test, and the Real Jesus and the Real God are out there somewhere.
It’s all very Gnostic.
Bwa-hahahahahahaha!!!
Oh, You’re a funny, funny God.
Dieu est un comédien jouant devant un public trop effrayé pour rire.