Paplinton:
The word 'truth' and its underlying concept has been so wantonly cheapened over the centuries by the christian experience as to render it meaningless. The only thing we can say is certain about religion, christianity being no exception, is as Prof David Eller, renowned anthropologist eruditely explains, "Religion is essentially social, in both senses of the word. It is an activity that humans do together; it is created, maintained, and perpetuated by human group behaviour. It is also social in the sense that it extends that sociality beyond the human world, to a (putative) realm of non-human agents who also interact with us socially." Any every religion exhibits the very same pathologies based on superstition and ignorance of how the mind works. Its been a tough nut to crack but thankfully science is slowly but inexorably shining a light into those shadowed recesses.So the question about the "Trooth™" of christianity as the 'one and only true religion', or any of the thousands of extinct and extant religions that make the identical claim, is simply enculturated mumbo-jumbo.[1]
He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of data. There can be no unseen reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.
The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.
Augustine, after he had experienced all the implications of ancient skepticism, gave a classical answer to the problem of the two absolutes: they coincide in the nature of truth. Veritas is presupposed in ever philosophical argument; and veritas is God. You cannot deny truth as such because you could do it only in the name of truth, thus establishing truth. And if you establish truth you affirm God. “Where I have found the truth there I have found my God, the truth itself,” Augustine says. The question of the two Ultimates is solved in such a way that the religious Ultimate is presupposed in every philosophical question, including the question of God. God is the presupposition of the question of God. This is the ontological solution of the problem of the philosophy of religion. God can never be reached if he is the object of a question and not its basis.[3]In the ideology of scientism God must necessarily be seen as "made up"and any unseen realm not subatomic has to be made up because if surface level of relativity is all there is then there can be no unseen. So the data stream version of truth is based upon ideology of scientism, at least the science oriented version of it is.I still see it as a creature of post human era (circa 1980) and thus akin to 'Trumpism and alt truth. So even tough fundamentalism calls itself "Christian" it has forsaken the Christian conception truth and is really just another product of the same forces that produced new atheism.
Lest there be any doubt that Paplinton is in the scientism way look at his answer to my comment:
"The overwhelming evidence suggests an explanation for why christianity [and all religions for that matter] persists is not that its narrative is true per se but that it is an epiphenomenal by-product of our need to make sense of the genetic and evolutionary drivers for human behavior in the absence of modern scientific knowledge and understanding two thousand years ago that we now are so thankfully privy to." So he has to destroy the concept of truth,make sure is no concept of a grander context in which material reality plays out amid unchanging eternal verities,it has to be relative and made up. It's just epi-phenomenal not even a real phenomenon. It;s based upon the need to explaimn things,which is the only motive for any belief if scientism is your only mode of thought. Because it emulates science.
His sense of history is totally distorted, The Christian concept is closer to teh Greek, having borrowed from it. The modern scientism view narrowed from the Christian. Physicist Paul Davies recognizes that modern enlightenment conceits of laws of physics are merely the residue of the God concept with the personality taken out, French philosphes just retained the powers of God with no will to motivate them.[4] The meta-narrative of scinentisms's ideology would have us believe that only Christianity is an attempt to understand and make sense but the empirical data stream of science is facts and the truth and the true explanation. In reality it is it just another meta-narrative with a different rational but still one that attempts to understand what is beyond its understanding.
Notice he has the social scientist pronounce religion just a social institution. Like that proves that's all it is. But the social sciences (founded largely by Auguste Comte) working out of the early dialectical materialist circles of Saimt-Simon, Fuerbach, and Marx were set in the path of atheist critique from the beginning,
Classical sociological theories are theories of great scope and ambition that either were created in Europe between the early 1800s and the early 1900s or have their roots in the culture of that period. The work of such classical sociological theorists as Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Vilfredo Pareto was important in its time and played a central role in the subsequent development of sociology. Additionally, the ideas of these theorists continue to be relevant to sociological theory today, because contemporary sociologists read them. They have become classics because they have a wide range of application and deal with centrally important social issues. [5]
Many of those thinkers made a big thing of atheism. I was a sociology major,l competed the whole major, my BA is in sinology and communication. I got out of the field because its disregard of any view other than its grinding number crunching reductionist meta-narrative.
Most modern Theologians base their view of truth upon the correspondence theory, true of Tillich in particular.
[The idea]... that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). This basic idea has been expressed in many ways, giving rise to an extended family of theories and, more often, theory sketches. Members of the family employ various concepts for the relevant relation (correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, copying, picturing, signification, representation, reference, satisfaction) and/or various concepts for the relevant portion of reality (facts, states of affairs, conditions, situations, events, objects, sequences of objects, sets, properties, tropes). The resulting multiplicity of versions and reformulations of the theory is due to a blend of substantive and terminological differences. The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, pragmatist, as well as coherentist, verificationist, and other epistemic theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, these traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory (note that these new competitors are typically notassociated with anti-realism). [6]
So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence. Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.
I close with an explanation of my graphic, Why do I use a scene from the Seventh Seal? BTW the mast head photo is also from the same film, the knight plays chess with death, After doing so he finally looses and he and his friends dance off into death symbolic of dying of black pleasure. Art beats science it's the perfect medium to transmit religious tough into the modern world. It's "made up" but not false.It's the symbol of a truth beyond our understanding that has to be mediated through metaphor, science is made phony when scientism pretends it can go beyond itself and explain the transcendent, that really means explicate it away.
we all play chess with death, we are all going to die,we do not know what's over the hill.But we know there is truth over the hill.
Sources [1] Paplinton, "If Christianity were True Would You Become a Christian?" Comment section, Cadre Comments.(April 22) 2017 blog. URL" http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/if-christianity-were-true-would-you.html?showComment=1493165487346#c247906903880029801 (accessed April 26,2017)
[2] 1DM is "one-Dimensional Man" Herbert Marcue's concept marking the decline of Western civilization and the ultimate triumph of capitalistic market forces in producing a tantalized system of obedience. It was the ultimate in capitalism induced false consciousness arresting class struggle. The workers get hooked on false needs, they don't perceive their need to rebel
see Marcuse: Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.
[3] Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, New York: Oxford University press,1964 12-13.
[4] Paul Davies, “Physics and The Mind of God: the Templeton Prize Address,” First Things, August 1995, on line version
URL:https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed Nov 25, 2016
[5] Paul Rtzer and Douglas J.Goodman, Classical Sociological Theory, New York: McGraw Hill 4th edition, 79.
[6] Marian David,, "The Correspondence Theory of Truth", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
31 comments:
Joe: He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing).
Christianity presents the trinity, for example, as absolute truth. How do we know it is true? Well, er, we just do. We are supposed to take it on faith. The church has said the trinity is true for centuries, therefore it must be true, and you will go to hell if you even dare to question it.
That is the "Trooth™" of Christianity.
Joe: In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of data. There can be no unseen reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.
So prove the "facts" of science are merely a "data stream" (whatever that is supposed to mean). What "shifting sands"? What "inconsistency of ideology"? Can you point one out? The fact is that science transcends ideology and religion. We know that because scientists of all sorts of ideologies and religions have the same scientific beliefs. And those beliefs are not "shifting sands" - the vast majority are extremely well established and very unlikely to change.
Sure, there are areas of research on-going, there are areas where speculation is still the norm. These are the areas that we hear about in the news because they are the ones that are changing, and this can give the impression that science is constantly changing. But that is only the case for a tiny part of it. I expect you did science at school for many years. How much of that science has changed? Pluto is no longer labelled a planet, but anything besides that? My kids are at the stage of finishing school, and as far as can tell, all the science they have learned was the same as I learned forty years ago.
Joe: The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.
But why should we suppose Christianity matches that ideal? Why should we suppose Christianity is real?
Just believing "God = truth" does not make it so.
Joe: So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence. Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.
The scientist's notion of truth is that any truth-claim must be well-supported before it is embraced. As you say here, your notion of truth is that behind those well-supports truth-claims there is a deeper truth that is not supported, but you are convinced is nevertheless true.
Because your religion tells you it is true.
But every theist is equally convinced his or her version of reality is true, no matter what the religion. Why should we believe you and not the Hindu down the road or the Pagan in ancient Rome? No reason at all. Your argument here is founded on the fact that there is no evidence for your version of the truth behind the empirical world.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing).
Pix:Christianity presents the trinity, for example, as absolute truth. How do we know it is true? Well, er, we just do. We are supposed to take it on faith. The church has said the trinity is true for centuries, therefore it must be true, and you will go to hell if you even dare to question it.
Of course you are merely ignorant of he historical evolution of the doctrine. We know it because it was deduced from the Bible. We know the Bible is true from a variety of approaches such as Jesus' statements.
That is the "Trooth™" of Christianity.
Joe: In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of data. There can be no unseen reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.
Pix:So prove the "facts" of science are merely a "data stream" (whatever that is supposed to mean). What "shifting sands"? What "inconsistency of ideology"? Can you point one out?
all derived from observation. I am just looking at the way new atheism uses science. It's a data stream because materialist assumption says there's no reality beyond the physical.So reality is just a parade of matter in the void
The fact is that science transcends ideology and religion. We know that because scientists of all sorts of ideologies and religions have the same scientific beliefs.
science is not supposed to be metaphysical. It is just supposed to be limited to observational physical reality. Anything hat says there is nothing beyond that is not science but metaphysics.
And those beliefs are not "shifting sands" - the vast majority are extremely well established and very unlikely to change.
science is not a well established set of beliefs. That's metaphysical. It's a process or a methodology based upon observation of the natural workload,period. It's function is hypothesis testing not Establishment of truth, Read Popper.
Sure, there are areas of research on-going, there are areas where speculation is still the norm. These are the areas that we hear about in the news because they are the ones that are changing, and this can give the impression that science is constantly changing. But that is only the case for a tiny part of it.
science is not about accumulation of truth. It's last hypothesis standing as verisimilitude not truth,
I expect you did science at school for many years. How much of that science has changed? Pluto is no longer labelled a planet, but anything besides that? My kids are at the stage of finishing school, and as far as can tell, all the science they have learned was the same as I learned forty years ago.
science a vastly different from the it was understood in childhood, The whole realm of ecology was unknown. Popper and Kuhn were unknown, I think your view of science is outmoded, that's what you can't see
Joe:The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.
pix:But why should we suppose Christianity matches that ideal? Why should we suppose Christianity is real?
The power of God in my life is what showed me.
Just believing "God = truth" does not make it so.
That's a consequence of the experiences I've had not a cause of my beliefs
Joe: So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence. Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.
Pix:The scientist's notion of truth is that any truth-claim must be well-supported before it is embraced. As you say here, your notion of truth is that behind those well-supports truth-claims there is a deeper truth that is not supported, but you are convinced is nevertheless true.
your conceit of well supported needs refinement. You limit that to just those ares where you can control and that support your view, When you open to understand the exponential areas the it's broader,
Because your religion tells you it is true.
Open your eyes, you confine your self to that one idea because you think its cleaver and it sports your prejudices,but there is much to my vuiew than that as you have seen from getting your ass kicked in argument,
But every theist is equally convinced his or her version of reality is true, no matter what the religion. Why should we believe you and not the Hindu down the road or the Pagan in ancient Rome? No reason at all. Your argument here is founded on the fact that there is no evidence for your version of the truth behind the empirical world.
I'm not sure if Hindu's count as theists, But as I have discussed before all gods point to God. U'll explain that on Wednesday
I will explain on Wednesday.
Joe: Of course you are merely ignorant of he historical evolution of the doctrine. We know it because it was deduced from the Bible. We know the Bible is true from a variety of approaches such as Jesus' statements.
So educate me about how it evolved. In particular, the proof that it is true.
Christians take this as absolute truth, so there is a proof right?
Of course not. The reality is that the authors of the New Testament had no idea about the trinity. It was invented later, one of many competing ideas about the divinity of Jesus. This happened to be the one that won. The rest were labelled as heresies, and eliminated one way or another.
Joe: all derived from observation.
I.e., supported by evidence. In my world, that is a good thing.
Compared to, say, the trinity, which is not.
Joe: I am just looking at the way new atheism uses science. It's a data stream because materialist assumption says there's no reality beyond the physical.So reality is just a parade of matter in the void
So "data stream" is just a vacuous phrase you picked up from somewhere.
And your objection to "the way new atheism uses science" is that it is "all derived from observation", which is to say, supported by evidence, in contrast to religion, which is not.
Joe: science is not supposed to be metaphysical. It is just supposed to be limited to observational physical reality. Anything hat says there is nothing beyond that is not science but metaphysics.
Science has to at least inform metaphysics. Otherwise you might as well be talking about the world of Lord of the Rings. Without a basis in empirical evidence, you are talking about a hypothetical, abstract world.
Joe: science is not a well established set of beliefs. That's metaphysical. It's a process or a methodology based upon observation of the natural workload,period. It's function is hypothesis testing not Establishment of truth, Read Popper.
Joe: science is not about accumulation of truth. It's last hypothesis standing as verisimilitude not truth,
I think this is just semantics. Scientists believe that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that entropy always increases. These are not beliefs in the religious sense because they are very well supported, but scientists all believe them to be true.
Science is both the accumulated knowledge - such as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and entropy always increases - and it is the process that determined and confirmed that.
Joe: science a vastly different from the it was understood in childhood, The whole realm of ecology was unknown. Popper and Kuhn were unknown, I think your view of science is outmoded, that's what you can't see
I did not say science is the same, I said the science you did at school is still the same. Of course there has been big additions to it in the last few decades. But the science you did at school has not changed; all the principles you were taught are still good science.
You THINK science is vastly different because the bits you see today are the bits of interest today, which is to say stuff that is disputed or changing. Behind the scenes the vast majority of science is unchanging.
Joe: your conceit of well supported needs refinement. You limit that to just those ares where you can control and that support your view, When you open to understand the exponential areas the it's broader,
Broader... but not necessarily true.
Joe: Open your eyes, you confine your self to that one idea because you think its cleaver and it sports your prejudices,but there is much to my vuiew than that as you have seen from getting your ass kicked in argument,
Now you just look delusional.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Of course you are merely ignorant of he historical evolution of the doctrine. We know it because it was deduced from the Bible. We know the Bible is true from a variety of approaches such as Jesus' statements.
So educate me about how it evolved. In particular, the proof that it is true.
Jesus told us of his divinity it fit certain ideas of the Hebrew scriptures. It's kind o complicated why don't you read something about it and try to educate yourself? I have some excellent pages on the Trinity
especially:
The Triune God im
n Hebrew thought
Christians take this as absolute truth, so there is a proof right?
Of course not. The reality is that the authors of the New Testament had no idea about the trinity. It was invented later, one of many competing ideas about the divinity of Jesus. This happened to be the one that won. The rest were labelled as heresies, and eliminated one way or another.
It's derived directly from the words of Jesus we need no further proof
Joe: all derived from observation.
I.e., supported by evidence. In my world, that is a good thing.
Compared to, say, the trinity, which is not.
If you accept Jesus as the incarnate logos then what is stronger than the word of God? His word is from God.
Joe: I am just looking at the way new atheism uses science. It's a data stream because materialist assumption says there's no reality beyond the physical.So reality is just a parade of matter in the void
So "data stream" is just a vacuous phrase you picked up from somewhere.
"A data stream is a set of extracted information from a data provider. It contains raw data that was gathered out of users' browser behavior from websites, where a dedicated pixel is placed. Data streams are useful for data scientists for big data and AI algorithms supply.
Data stream - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Data_stream"
that is descriptive of what I see going on. You think the material is all there is and it is an endless parade of stuff' you mine data from that stuff so its a data stream what's the big deal? are you illiterate?
And your objection to "the way new atheism uses science" is that it is "all derived from observation", which is to say, supported by evidence, in contrast to religion, which is not.
I never said that it's a complete bastardization of what I have said,I think you know you are being dishonest, my criticism is that you use science as a truth machine rather than hypothesis testing, Science is not a means of establishing truth at least not on a metaphysical scale.
Joe: science is not supposed to be metaphysical. It is just supposed to be limited to observational physical reality. Anything hat says there is nothing beyond that is not science but metaphysics.
pix:Science has to at least inform metaphysics. Otherwise you might as well be talking about the world of Lord of the Rings. Without a basis in empirical evidence, you are talking about a hypothetical, abstract world.
that is ideological drivel, one does not need science to know we don't live in the Shire with Hobbits,
Joe: science is not a well established set of beliefs. That's metaphysical. It's a process or a methodology based upon observation of the natural workload,period. It's function is hypothesis testing not Establishment of truth, Read Popper.
Joe: science is not about accumulation of truth. It's last hypothesis standing as verisimilitude not truth,
Pix:I think this is just semantics.
You are going to write off all of Carl Popper as semantics? How ignorant! There is a very clear distinction here.
Pix: Scientists believe that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that entropy always increases. These are not beliefs in the religious sense because they are very well supported, but scientists all believe them to be true.
That is not a truth claim it/s an observation based upon shared assumptions about the physical word. It doesn't require any sort of metaphysical structure to explain.
Science is both the accumulated knowledge - such as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and entropy always increases - and it is the process that determined and confirmed that.
That does not establish metaphysical truth it merely tells us how we observe the universe behaving,
Joe: science a vastly different from the it was understood in childhood, The whole realm of ecology was unknown. Popper and Kuhn were unknown, I think your view of science is outmoded, that's what you can't see
Pix:I did not say science is the same, I said the science you did at school is still the same. Of course there has been big additions to it in the last few decades. But the science you did at school has not changed; all the principles you were taught are still good science.
That's a red herring. You drug that in here to distract the real discussion. Science not changing is irrelevant. First,it has changed I pointer that out. Secondly that has noting to do with the issues,,
Pix:You THINK science is vastly different because the bits you see today are the bits of interest today, which is to say stuff that is disputed or changing. Behind the scenes the vast majority of science is unchanging.
No it;s because thinkers such as Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn vastly changed our understanding of science, those guys had not yet made their major contributions when I was a child.
Joe: your conceit of well supported needs refinement. You limit that to just those ares where you can control and that support your view, When you open to understand the exponential areas the it's broader,
Broader... but not necessarily true.
Joe: Open your eyes, you confine your self to that one idea because you think its cleaver and it sports your prejudices,but there is much to my vuiew than that as you have seen from getting your ass kicked in argument,
Now you just look delusional.
You don;t even understand the importance of Popper and Kuhn
Joe: Jesus told us of his divinity it fit certain ideas of the Hebrew scriptures. It's kind o complicated why don't you read something about it and try to educate yourself? I have some excellent pages on the Trinity
It is complicated because it was made up later and retrofitted to the existing texts. I will check out the links later, but this is something I have looked at before.
Joe: If you accept Jesus as the incarnate logos then what is stronger than the word of God? His word is from God.
Right. If you assume Christianity is true, it is easy to prove Christianity is true.
Joe: that is descriptive of what I see going on. You think the material is all there is and it is an endless parade of stuff' you mine data from that stuff so its a data stream what's the big deal? are you illiterate?
A data stream is a sequence of data that is made available over time. Look at the formal definition on that Wiki page. It is specific to computing, so talks about tuples, but the salient bit is that the data is formalised in some manner and is sequential over positive time intervals. Examples of data streams are a news feed where you get articles sent to you as they are published or - at a lower level - when you type, each character goes into a data stream that is sent to the app you are writing in. In each case you have discrete bits of data that is consistent in its nature and is delivered over time.
Joe: I never said that it's a complete bastardization of what I have said,I think you know you are being dishonest, my criticism is that you use science as a truth machine rather than hypothesis testing, Science is not a means of establishing truth at least not on a metaphysical scale.
Science is the best way of establishing truth that we have by a long way (other than direct experience).
Of course there are areas it is not applicable to. The implication of that is that in those areas we will never be certain.
Joe: that is ideological drivel, one does not need science to know we don't live in the Shire with Hobbits,
How do you know we do not? You compare that world to this, and see big differences. You use empirical evidence.
You are proposing a universe for which God is the creator. How do we determine if we live in THAT universe? The only way is to look at empirical evidence.
Joe: You are going to write off all of Carl Popper as semantics? How ignorant! There is a very clear distinction here.
I am writing you off as semantics.
To me science is an approach to knowledge, but it is also the body of knowledge that ensues.
Joe: That is not a truth claim it/s an observation based upon shared assumptions about the physical word. It doesn't require any sort of metaphysical structure to explain.
But it is still science, which is all I was claiming.
Joe: That does not establish metaphysical truth it merely tells us how we observe the universe behaving,
Okay, but my point was that the body of knowledge obtained by the scientific method is itself science.
Pix
Pix: I did not say science is the same, I said the science you did at school is still the same. Of course there has been big additions to it in the last few decades. But the science you did at school has not changed; all the principles you were taught are still good science.
Joe: That's a red herring. You drug that in here to distract the real discussion. Science not changing is irrelevant. First,it has changed I pointer that out. Secondly that has noting to do with the issues,,
Again, I did not say science is the same. What bit of that do you not get? Yes, science has changed, but the vast majority of it has not.
You said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." This appears to be saying that science is in a constant state of flux. That is simply not true. The vast majority of science has not changed since you were at school.
That does NOT mean there has been no change, so please do not go down that cul-de-sac again.
Joe: No it;s because thinkers such as Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn vastly changed our understanding of science, those guys had not yet made their major contributions when I was a child.
So tell me some science you learnt at school that is now considered wrong.
Like I asked three posts ago.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Jesus told us of his divinity it fit certain ideas of the Hebrew scriptures. It's kind o complicated why don't you read something about it and try to educate yourself? I have some excellent pages on the Trinity
Pix:It is complicated because it was made up later and retrofitted to the existing texts. I will check out the links later, but this is something I have looked at before.
It's not made up it's am interpretation of things in OT and Jesus' teachings
Joe: If you accept Jesus as the incarnate logos then what is stronger than the word of God? His word is from God.
Pix: Right. If you assume Christianity is true, it is easy to prove Christianity is true.
I was an atheist,I have far better reasons to assume Christianity is true than not,
Joe: that is descriptive of what I see going on. You think the material is all there is and it is an endless parade of stuff' you mine data from that stuff so its a data stream what's the big deal? are you illiterate?
Pix:A data stream is a sequence of data that is made available over time. Look at the formal definition on that Wiki page.
That a term Iocimed for use. I know there other uses employ in the same phrase but I was talking about what I described. I can change my phraseology that wont help your argument,
It is specific to computing, so talks about tuples, but the salient bit is that the data is formalised in some manner and is sequential over positive time intervals.
that is unimportant,
Examples of data streams are a news feed where you get articles sent to you as they are published or - at a lower level - when you type, each character goes into a data stream that is sent to the app you are writing in. In each case you have discrete bits of data that is consistent in its nature and is delivered over time.
the terms I use carry my meaning,
Joe: I never said that it's a complete bastardization of what I have said,I think you know you are being dishonest, my criticism is that you use science as a truth machine rather than hypothesis testing, Science is not a means of establishing truth at least not on a metaphysical scale.
Science is the best way of establishing truth that we have by a long way (other than direct experience).
Bull shit, not at all. It can't even answer the question of God.It can't answer ethical issue, it can't tell us the meaning of life. that's just rubbish, it proves my point about the atheist science worship.
Pix:Of course there are areas it is not applicable to. The implication of that is that in those areas we will never be certain.
right kike the most important things
Joe: that is ideological drivel, one does not need science to know we don't live in the Shire with Hobbits,
Px:How do you know we do not?
the Fawns of Narnia told me so.
You compare that world to this, and see big differences. You use empirical evidence.
I never said empirical evidence is no good. that'a red herring all of your arguments are attempts to get us off the point
You are proposing a universe for which God is the creator. How do we determine if we live in THAT universe? The only way is to look at empirical evidence.
Not by itself, we also need deductive arguments. Just having some empirical evidence can't answer big questions.God is not given in sense data. BTW this is a discussion based up on a God argument your question is answered every time I make such an argument:how do we know God is real?"
Joe: You are going to write off all of Carl Popper as semantics? How ignorant! There is a very clear distinction here.
I am writing you off as semantics.
To me science is an approach to knowledge, but it is also the body of knowledge that ensues.
sure but it's not the only knowledge
Joe: That is not a truth claim it/s an observation based upon shared assumptions about the physical word. It doesn't require any sort of metaphysical structure to explain.
But it is still science, which is all I was claiming.
so what? as far as I can see that has no relevance to my arguments,
Joe: That does not establish metaphysical truth it merely tells us how we observe the universe behaving,
Okay, but my point was that the body of knowledge obtained by the scientific method is itself science.
that does not contradict my arguments nor does it answer my questions
Pix: I did not say science is the same, I said the science you did at school is still the same. Of course there has been big additions to it in the last few decades. But the science you did at school has not changed; all the principles you were taught are still good science.
so what? nothing I've argued says otherwise.
Joe: That's a red herring. You drug that in here to distract the real discussion. Science not changing is irrelevant. First,it has changed I pointer that out. Secondly that has noting to do with the issues,,
Again, I did not say science is the same. What bit of that do you not get? Yes, science has changed, but the vast majority of it has not.
you are the one who attacked my post so it's responsibility to fit arguments to my statement,
You said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." This appears to be saying that science is in a constant state of flux. That is simply not true. The vast majority of science has not changed since you were at school.
what science studies is in a statement of flux
That does NOT mean there has been no change, so please do not go down that cul-de-sac again.
stop this barrage of irrelevance and deal with my arguments in the OP
Joe: No it;s because thinkers such as Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn vastly changed our understanding of science, those guys had not yet made their major contributions when I was a child.
So tell me some science you learnt at school that is now considered wrong.
show me where my argument is predicated upon science being wrong?
Like I asked three posts ago.
You are not capable of understanding a simple essay. Science does not establish truth in any meaningful sense. The truth it gives us is travail meaningless truth but to put the meaning in it we have to look beyond science to philosophy, art and theology
Here's the point of the op again:
the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of data. There can be no unseen reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.
Joe: I was an atheist,I have far better reasons to assume Christianity is true than not,
But I bet you were raised as a Christian, and that early conditioning has distorted your thinking, making you accept as true claims that are very weakly supported or simply circular. Again and again your arguments are predicated on Christianity being true; none of them would convince an atheist, not unless on some level he already thought Christianity was true.
Joe: Bull shit, not at all. It can't even answer the question of God. It can't answer ethical issue, it can't tell us the meaning of life.
True. But neither can you. You cannot provide good evidence for any of these, and nor can anyone else. All you have is your essentially unsupported opinion. At least science is honest enough to admit areas where it cannot provide answers.
Joe: right kike the most important things
Noting that they are important does not make your opinion on them any more valid or reliable.
Joe: I never said empirical evidence is no good. that'a red herring all of your arguments are attempts to get us off the point
The issue of empirical evidence is foundational!
Indeed, that you find empirical evidence unimportant really goes to prove my point that your arguments come down to just your opinion.
Joe: Not by itself, we also need deductive arguments.
Obviously.
Joe: sure but it's not the only knowledge
Okay, but besides direct experience, it is the only reliable knowledge.
Joe: so what? as far as I can see that has no relevance to my arguments,
You disputed it, so I argued it.
Joe: so what? nothing I've argued says otherwise.
As I said last time, you said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." This appears to be saying that science is in a constant state of flux. That is simply not true. The vast majority of science has not changed since you were at school.
Now it seems you are admitting that actually the vast majority of scientific knowledge is unchanging. I guess that is progress.
Joe: what science studies is in a statement of flux
Obviously, because once it is established, it stops being flux and scientists study something else.
This is like exploring a new country, and complaining that the explorers only explorer areas that are not fully mapped!
Joe: show me where my argument is predicated upon science being wrong?
As I said last time, you said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things."
Joe: You are not capable of understanding a simple essay. Science does not establish truth in any meaningful sense. The truth it gives us is travail meaningless truth but to put the meaning in it we have to look beyond science to philosophy, art and theology
Philosophy and theology are opinions. All they can do is establish a person's opinion on what the truth might be. That opinion might be true, it might not. A lot of theists are of the opinion that Christianity is true, and a comparable number have the opinion that Islam is true. They are all utterly certain they are right, but it is still opinion based on the weakest of evidence.
None of them can support their claims in the way science supports its claims.
Pix
Joe: the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of data. There can be no unseen reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.
See this is why I think your argument is predicated upon science being wrong. You say: "The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." That is simply not true. As you have conceded, the vast majority of scientific knowledge is unchanging.
The truth is that mainstream science (such as the laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws of motion) is as close to fact as you are going to get. It is not vanishing, it is not based on shifting sands.
It is your opinion that behind the reality that science investigates there is the Christian God, but nothing in your post gives us any assurance that your opinion is the Truth.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: I was an atheist,I have far better reasons to assume Christianity is true than not,
Pix: But I bet you were raised as a Christian, and that early conditioning has distorted your thinking, making you accept as true claims that are very weakly supported or simply circular. Again and again your arguments are predicated on Christianity being true; none of them would convince an atheist, not unless on some level he already thought Christianity was true.
it has been cavalry demonstrated that you cannot comprehend the distinction between the assumption of previously documented ideas and begging the question. Every argument you make begs the question you don't understand logic.
Joe: Bull shit, not at all. It [science] can't even answer the question of God. It can't answer ethical issue, it can't tell us the meaning of life.
pix: True. But neither can you. You cannot provide good evidence for any of these, and nor can anyone else.
sure as hell can and have done so but you have never answered my moral argument.
Pix: All you have is your essentially unsupported opinion. At least science is honest enough to admit areas where it cannot provide answers.
In your ignorance if logic you think of delusive proof as opinion that is quite stupid, you are ignorant.
Joe: right like the most important things
Pix:Noting that they are important does not make your opinion on them any more valid or reliable.
Logic does
Joe: I never said empirical evidence is no good. that'a red herring all of your arguments are attempts to get us off the point
Pix:The issue of empirical evidence is foundational!
No it's not not unless you are an empiricist,if you are you need to read some philosophy. But see the fallacy you work under? you assert empiricism is foundational therefore any failure to toe the ideological line of empiricism is anti foundational. But deduction is foundational too,
Pix:Indeed, that you find empirical evidence unimportant really goes to prove my point that your arguments come down to just your opinion.
Just twisting my words
Joe: Not by itself, we also need deductive arguments.
Pix:Obviously.
you are actually conceding my point,
Joe: sure but it's not the only knowledge
Pix:Okay, but besides direct experience, it is the only reliable knowledge.
show ,me some empirical evidence that proves that point. show me some empirical data that proves there is a distinction between empirical and deductive?
Joe: so what? as far as I can see that has no relevance to my arguments,
Pix:You disputed it, so I argued it.
I disputed your bs idea that only empiric proof is valid for belief. you are makimng an unwarranted leap from foundational assumptions of empiricism to and exclusive reliance on empiricism alone
Joe: so what? nothing I've argued says otherwise.
Pix:As I said last time, you said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." This appears to be saying that science is in a constant state of flux. That is simply not true. The vast majority of science has not changed since you were at school.
I already rebuffed that. you still ignoring what I said about it. you are talking about the findings in data I;m talking about philosophical concept which is very different, you prove my point about data streame.
Now it seems you are admitting that actually the vast majority of scientific knowledge is unchanging. I guess that is progress.
Joe: what science studies is in a statement of flux
Pix:Obviously, because once it is established, it stops being flux and scientists study something else.
science does not establish truth it establishes verisimilitude based upon hypothesis testing.
This is like exploring a new country, and complaining that the explorers only explorer areas that are not fully mapped!
you really have no clue
Joe: show me where my argument is predicated upon science being wrong?
Pix:As I said last time, you said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things."
that does not disprove my point. you are still looking at reality as a data stream with nothing behind it
Joe: You are not capable of understanding a simple essay. Science does not establish truth in any meaningful sense. The truth it gives us is travail meaningless truth but to put the meaning in it we have to look beyond science to philosophy, art and theology
Pix:Philosophy and theology are opinions.
No they are not but you do not understand logic so you don't know what they are
All they can do is establish a person's opinion on what the truth might be. That opinion might be true, it might not. A lot of theists are of the opinion that Christianity is true, and a comparable number have the opinion that Islam is true. They are all utterly certain they are right, but it is still opinion based on the weakest of evidence.
that's all science does either, science is not a fortress of facts, it can't offer meaning about the data without philosophy
None of them can support their claims in the way science supports its claims.
you just used sylphs your statement is philosophical, Any time you put an atheist spin on science you are being philosophical
Joe: sure as hell can and have done so but you have never answered my moral argument.
No you cannot.
If anyone could provide good evidence of God, that would be world news! If a Christian could provide god evidence that Christianity is true, that would be at the top of every Christian web site! Instead, what we see is a whole bunch of poor arguments supported by weak arguments and circular reasoning.
Just look at CADRE Comments, and see how many of the arguments there assume Christianity is true! A lot of them are based on scripture; it says this in scripture, therefore... The unspoken assumption is that scripture is necessarily true because it comes from God, which assumes the Christian God exists.
Which is just a circular argument.
Joe: In your ignorance if logic you think of delusive proof as opinion that is quite stupid, you are ignorant.
Labelling something "deductive proof" does not make it so!
The supposed proofs are based on faulty reasoning and poorly supported premises, and more often than not the premises assume the conclusion.
Joe: Logic does
Only when the logic is valid and the premises are well established - and do not assume the conclusion.
Joe: No it's not not unless you are an empiricist,if you are you need to read some philosophy. But see the fallacy you work under? you assert empiricism is foundational therefore any failure to toe the ideological line of empiricism is anti foundational. But deduction is foundational too,
And here is a wonderful illustration of what I was just talking about. You are so insistent that good evidence is not required because you know that your claims are not supported by it.
Joe: Just twisting my words
But you just did it again.
Tell me Joe, is empirical evidence important to an argument? If the premises of an argument are not supported by any evidence, but the logic is good, do you think the argument proves anything about the real world?
Joe: show ,me some empirical evidence that proves that point. show me some empirical data that proves there is a distinction between empirical and deductive?
Are you REALLY saying empirical and deductive are the same?
Empirical means it can be observed. Deductive means it uses reasoning. They are two very different - but complementary - things. Relativity was proposed from a deductive argument that was founded on empirical evidence. That is why we believe relativity is true of this universe, rather than a hypothetical universe.
Joe: I disputed your bs idea that only empiric proof is valid for belief. you are makimng an unwarranted leap from foundational assumptions of empiricism to and exclusive reliance on empiricism alone
Without empirical evidence to support an argument we have no reason to suppose the argument applies to this universe rather than a purely hypothetical one.
Again, relativity is a great example. Why suppose light cannot travel faster than a certain speed? That Einstein worked out a bunch of equations is not enough. We accept relativity as true (a good model) not only because of the deductive reasoning, but because the deductive reasoning is based on, and confirmed by, empirical evidence.
Pix
Joe: so what? nothing I've argued says otherwise.
Pix: As I said last time, you said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." This appears to be saying that science is in a constant state of flux. That is simply not true. The vast majority of science has not changed since you were at school.
Joe: I already rebuffed that. you still ignoring what I said about it. you are talking about the findings in data I;m talking about philosophical concept which is very different, you prove my point about data streame.
So are you saying science is in a constant state of flux, is just shifting sands? Or are you admitting is is largely unchanged in the last fifty years? You seem to be shilly-shallying from one to the other as the mood strikes you.
Pix:
Joe: science does not establish truth it establishes verisimilitude based upon hypothesis testing.
Nice try, but I said science becomes "established", not "established as truth". The laws of thermodynamics are "established" science.
Joe: science does not establish truth it establishes verisimilitude based upon hypothesis testing.
Which is therefore one up on theology, which does not.
Joe: that does not disprove my point. you are still looking at reality as a data stream with nothing behind it
Okay.
But that does not magically make your claims about what is behind reality any more the truth. They are still just your opinion.
Joe: No they are not but you do not understand logic so you don't know what they are
Yes, they really are, because your logic is based on premises that are themselves just unsupported opinions. When the premise of your argument is just opinion, the conclusion is necessarily just opinion too.
A great example would be your last argument on CADRE Comments. It is your opinion that spontaneous existence is impossible, but it is no more than that. Therefore your conclusion is just your opinion.
Joe: that's all science does either, science is not a fortress of facts, it can't offer meaning about the data without philosophy
No, that is NOT what science does.
A claim in science is only established after comprehensive testing to ensure it is good. Religion does not do that!
A claim in science is tentative, and is acknowledged to be a good model, rather than absolute truth. Religion does not do that!
Joe: you just used sylphs your statement is philosophical, Any time you put an atheist spin on science you are being philosophical
So what? Are you saying that I must be wrong if I use philosophy? I am not arguing all philosophy is wrong - arguably science is a branch of philosophy, that is why most scientists have a Ph.D. - the "Ph" stands for philosophy.
What I am arguing is that philosophy in the absence of empirical evidence is just speculation and opinion, with no reason to suppose it is the truth.
[By the way, the comment on Jess' last post on CADRE was not by me]
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: sure as hell can [Joe: Bull shit, not at all. It [science] can't even answer the question of God. It can't answer ethical issue, it can't tell us the meaning of life.
pix: True. But neither can you. You cannot provide good evidence for any of these, and nor can anyone else.]and have done so but you have never answered my moral argument.
No you cannot.
You do not mow what you are talking about,I will bracket this until next Monday that will be my subject for that essay,
pix:If anyone could provide good evidence of God, that would be world news!
that's bullshit, there is a ton of good evidence, you don't want it so you refuse too listen that's why it's not news to atheists; most people don't doubt God 90% believe in God that's why proving God is not news to anyone but idiot atheists,
pix: If a Christian could provide god evidence that Christianity is true, that would be at the top of every Christian web site! Instead, what we see is a whole bunch of poor arguments supported by weak arguments and circular reasoning.
You are assuming that everyone has your agenda. Most people Blevins in God it's not news they don't need proof and that's why thy don't care,
Just look at CADRE Comments, and see how many of the arguments there assume Christianity is true! A lot of them are based on scripture; it says this in scripture, therefore...
that is BS. everything we write here is not an argument, you don't an argument when you see one.
The unspoken assumption is that scripture is necessarily true because it comes from God, which assumes the Christian God exists.
that's right, we believe in it so for us it;s an authority, that would be a good argument for one christian to convince another ,no one expects it to convince an atheist,
Which is just a circular argument.
you do not know what a circular argument is. If one accepts the authority of scripture then it's not circular. us your brain dumb ass. If you are going to play chess you have to use the rules.If you want to play chess you have to move the men the way the rules say. If you want to play chess you play by the rules. that is not circular.
Joe: In your ignorance if logic you think of delusive proof as opinion that is quite stupid, you are ignorant.
Labelling something "deductive proof" does not make it so!
You don't Know shit about logic, It's not deductive because I label it. It is deductive becasue I kow what it means you don't.
pix:The supposed proofs are based on faulty reasoning and poorly supported premises, and more often than not the premises assume the conclusion.
You don't know shit about logic. They are not futurity you just don't understand it they arrive at conclusions you don't like so you assert they are wrong,
Joe: Logic does
Only when the logic is valid and the premises are well established - and do not assume the conclusion.
you are basimg thatenririleyupon you asertom therecan;tbe a
god so logic cam't support God. You are making it up.
Joe: No it's not not unless you are an empiricist,if you are you need to read some philosophy. But see the fallacy you work under? you assert empiricism is foundational therefore any failure to toe the ideological line of empiricism is anti foundational. But deduction is foundational too,
pix:And here is a wonderful illustration of what I was just talking about. You are so insistent that good evidence is not required because you know that your claims are not supported by it.
You have not offered a single logical reason why my argument is not true
Joe: Just twisting my words
But you just did it again.
you think it;s illogical to demand logic?
Tell me Joe, is empirical evidence important to an argument? If the premises of an argument are not supported by any evidence, but the logic is good, do you think the argument proves anything about the real world?
empirical evidence does not beat logic. without logic empirical is meaningless. Moro veer, I have
empirical evidence of God. the mystical experince studies offer empirical evidence.
Joe: show ,me some empirical evidence that proves that point. show me some empirical data that proves there is a distinction between empirical and deductive?
Are you REALLY saying empirical and deductive are the same?
I am saying you can't prove shit from shinola with empirical evidence alone.
Empirical means it can be observed. Deductive means it uses reasoning. They are two very different - but complementary - things. Relativity was proposed from a deductive argument that was founded on empirical evidence. That is why we believe relativity is true of this universe, rather than a hypothetical universe.
You have not proven that with empirical evidence, you only used deductive reasoning for that,show me empirical proof
Joe: I disputed your bs idea that only empiric proof is valid for belief. you are makimng an unwarranted leap from foundational assumptions of empiricism to and exclusive reliance on empiricism alone
Without empirical evidence to support an argument we have no reason to suppose the argument applies to this universe rather than a purely hypothetical one.
show me some empirical evidence that proves that appoint? you can't even say that without deductive arguments
Again, relativity is a great example. Why suppose light cannot travel faster than a certain speed? That Einstein worked out a bunch of equations is not enough. We accept relativity as true (a good model) not only because of the deductive reasoning, but because the deductive reasoning is based on, and confirmed by, empirical evidence.
that is totally irrelevant, all you said was we need empirical evidence to prove an temporal question that has nothing to do with god issue.
The issue of Gods existence is not about empirical vs deductive,that is your red herring
Anonymous said...
Joe: so what? nothing I've argued says otherwise.
Pix: As I said last time, you said originally: "The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon the constantly shifting sands of surface level things." This appears to be saying that science is in a constant state of flux. That is simply not true. The vast majority of science has not changed since you were at school.
science is not the Establishment of truth,that is Carl Popper go learn who he was.
Joe: I already rebuffed that. you still ignoring what I said about it. you are talking about the findings in data I;m talking about philosophical concept which is very different, you prove my point about data streame.
px: So are you saying science is in a constant state of flux, is just shifting sands? Or are you admitting is is largely unchanged in the last fifty years? You seem to be shilly-shallying from one to the other as the mood strikes you.
when you say science you mean the truth claims you derive from science,I mean the process of observing the world obviously that is in flux because the subject is in flux.
Joe: science does not establish truth it establishes verisimilitude based upon hypothesis testing.
Nice try, but I said science becomes "established", not "established as truth". The laws of thermodynamics are "established" science.
that does no not disprove my point, it;s just verisimilitude. you are so ignorant you don't even know you are contradicting Popper
Joe: science does not establish truth it establishes verisimilitude based upon hypothesis testing.
Px:Which is therefore one up on theology, which does not.
Obviously it does for the question of God thats why it is theology.
Joe: that does not disprove my point. you are still looking at reality as a data stream with nothing behind it
Okay.
you clearly haven't a clue as to any of this
\
Px: But that does not magically make your claims about what is behind reality any more the truth. They are still just your opinion.
yea it does
Joe: No they are not but you do not understand logic so you don't know what they are
Yes, they really are, because your logic is based on premises that are themselves just unsupported opinions. When the premise of your argument is just opinion, the conclusion is necessarily just opinion too.
go back and look at the lame attacks you make agait my premises you can;t dispute them, the premise to my ca says:things exist do you dney that"
A great example would be your last argument on CADRE Comments. It is your opinion that spontaneous existence is impossible, but it is no more than that. Therefore your conclusion is just your opinion.
I gave you four reasons to think it's wrong you never answered one of them
Joe: that's all science does either, science is not a fortress of facts, it can't offer meaning about the data without philosophy
No, that is NOT what science does.
A claim in science is only established after comprehensive testing to ensure it is good. Religion does not do that!
that is Popper's definition of science,
A claim in science is tentative, and is acknowledged to be a good model, rather than absolute truth. Religion does not do that!
that has no bearing on anything, my argument is there there are other typos of knowledge. Just saying they do tests does not disprove that.
Joe: you just used sylphs your statement is philosophical, Any time you put an atheist spin on science you are being philosophical
So what? Are you saying that I must be wrong if I use philosophy? I am not arguing all philosophy is wrong - arguably science is a branch of philosophy, that is why most scientists have a Ph.D. - the "Ph" stands for philosophy.
you can;t use philosophy to back up your own ideology then deny the validity of philosophy
What I am arguing is that philosophy in the absence of empirical evidence is just speculation and opinion, with no reason to suppose it is the truth.
only if you are dealing with an empirical question
[By the way, the comment on Jess' last post on CADRE was not by me]
OK thanks
Joe: that's bullshit, there is a ton of good evidence, you don't want it so you refuse too listen that's why it's not news to atheists; most people don't doubt God 90% believe in God that's why proving God is not news to anyone but idiot atheists,
No there is not. What little evidence there is is ambiguous, and can be readily - or even more easily - explained in other ways.
You say 90% of people believe in God, but beyond that very broad claim, they disagree wildly. A third of them think Jesus was resurrected, two thirds are equally certain he was not. A third are sure Mohammad was the greatest prophet, two thirds are adamant he was not. Even just within Christianity there are disagreements so significant they cause wars (or at least are considered valid reasons for war).
How many of those 90% have a clue about your argument here? Virtually none of them. That alone makes your claim about 90% rings pretty hollow.
Joe: You are assuming that everyone has your agenda. Most people Blevins in God it's not news they don't need proof and that's why thy don't care,
I highlighted the salient point. Christians do not care if there is proof or not. You are spot on.
Are you aware how damning that is?
Joe: that's right, we believe in it so for us it;s an authority, that would be a good argument for one christian to convince another ,no one expects it to convince an atheist,
Joe: you do not know what a circular argument is.
See the sentence above. You believe the Bible as authority. Why? Because you assume Christianity is true. And then you use that to prove Christianity is true!
Circular argument.
Joe: If one accepts the authority of scripture then it's not circular. us your brain dumb ass.
Wow, you really do not see?
Joe: If you are going to play chess you have to use the rules.If you want to play chess you have to move the men the way the rules say. If you want to play chess you play by the rules. that is not circular.
No, that is not circular. And also, chess is not an argument.
Joe: empirical evidence does not beat logic. without logic empirical is meaningless. Moro veer, I have
empirical evidence of God. the mystical experince studies offer empirical evidence.
No, empirical evidence does not beat logic. I never said it does. That is a straw man you seem desperate to promote.
My argument is that logic without empirical evidence means nothing.
Can you see the difference? Or do you not want to?
Joe: I am saying you can't prove shit from shinola with empirical evidence alone.
And you keep saying it, even though no one disagrees. You have to, because it is all you have.
Joe: You have not proven that with empirical evidence, you only used deductive reasoning for that,show me empirical proof
I am not proving anything about the real world. The existence of God and the laws of thermodynamics are about the real world, so they need evidence.
How can this be news to you?
Joe: The issue of Gods existence is not about empirical vs deductive,that is your red herring
No, it is NOT about empirical vs deductive. That is YOUR red herring.
It is about deductive AND empirical.
Joe: when you say science you mean the truth claims you derive from science,I mean the process of observing the world obviously that is in flux because the subject is in flux.
The subject is NOT in flux. That is simply not true. A small part of is, but the vast majority is well established, and has hardly changed since you were at school.
Joe: Obviously it does for the question of God thats why it is theology.
No it does not. It is laughable that you are pretending that the question of God has been established with any verisimilitude at all.
Pix
Joe: I gave you four reasons to think it's wrong you never answered one of them
I freely admit I never answered any of them. And when I flipped them to argue against eternal existence, YOU could not answer any of them. But you conveniently ignore that, because all you really want is to delude yourself that you are right, and so you turn a blind eye to the counter arguments.
Pix: A claim in science is only established after comprehensive testing to ensure it is good. Religion does not do that!
Joe: that is Popper's definition of science,
Agreed.
Joe: that has no bearing on anything, my argument is there there are other typos of knowledge. Just saying they do tests does not disprove that.
Sure. One type is the reliable knowledge that we have in science, and another is the unreliable knowledge - or opinion - that we have in religion.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: that's bullshit, there is a ton of good evidence, you don't want it so you refuse too listen that's why it's not news to atheists; most people don't doubt God 90% believe in God that's why proving God is not news to anyone but idiot atheists,
Pix: No there is not. What little evidence there is is ambiguous, and can be readily - or even more easily - explained in other ways.
You have no idea what is good evidence and what is not because you don't want to believe so you don't care what's true;I've made 52 God arguments.
Pix: You say 90% of people believe in God, but beyond that very broad claim, they disagree wildly. A third of them think Jesus was resurrected, two thirds are equally certain he was not. A third are sure Mohammad was the greatest prophet, two thirds are adamant he was not. Even just within Christianity there are disagreements so significant they cause wars (or at least are considered valid reasons for war).
none of that matters I was talking about why most people don't find God arguments big news. That is what you must answer and that alone! atheism is not normal. most people. the vast majority,believe in God and don't like atheism because it's hopeless.
Pix:How many of those 90% have a clue about your argument here? Virtually none of them. That alone makes your claim about 90% rings pretty hollow.
Since my point was most people don't feel the need to prove God because they think God is obvious it's not surprising they don't know abouit God arguments nor do they care;why should they since they think we don't need to argue for God? That is consistent with my position.
Joe: You are assuming that everyone has your agenda. Most people Blevins in God it's not news they don't need proof and that's why thy don't care,
Pix: I highlighted the salient point. Christians do not care if there is proof or not. You are spot on.
Are you aware how damning that is?
Not in the least. you are out of touch with nature's feeling about the divine you don't understand the basics. Most Christians feel God is obvious that's why they don't see the need to use logic and proofs. Most people of any faith have a natural initiative sense of God's realty.
Joe: that's right, we believe in it [the bible]for us it;s an authority, that would be a good argument for one christian to convince another ,no one expects it to convince an atheist,
Joe: you do not know what a circular argument is.
See the sentence above. You believe the Bible as authority. Why? Because you assume Christianity is true. And then you use that to prove Christianity is true!
It's quite stupid to assume that events can only flow in one way such that one must see the bible as true and draw from tat the idea of Christianity being true, That's childish bull shit.
It's too simplistic to speak of "the bible is true" as though its one document and all says the same thing.
Circular argument.
Yiou really need to learn what that is.
Joe: If one accepts the authority of scripture then it's not circular. use your brain dumb ass.
Wow, you really do not see?
you are working very simple modded childish categories. You don't know circular rationing is. Your assertion that Christina have no Independence verification for God than the bikini is quite ignorant
Joe: If you are going to play chess you have to use the rules.If you want to play chess you have to move the men the way the rules say. If you want to play chess you play by the rules. that is not circular.
No, that is not circular. And also, chess is not an argument.
It doesn't have to be it;s an example.Anything can be an example
Joe: empirical evidence does not beat logic. without logic empirical is meaningless. Moreover, I have
empirical evidence of God. the mystical experience studies offer empirical evidence.
Px: No, empirical evidence does not beat logic. I never said it does. That is a straw man you seem desperate to promote.
You just about did say it.
My argument is that logic without empirical evidence means nothing.
Can you see the difference? Or do you not want to?
I have both
...
Joe: You have not proven that with empirical evidence, you only used deductive reasoning for that,show me empirical proof
I am not proving anything about the real world. The existence of God and the laws of thermodynamics are about the real world, so they need evidence.
Wrong! any argument you assert you must prove.
How can this be news to you?
learn logic
Joe: The issue of Gods existence is not about empirical vs deductive,that is your red herring
No, it is NOT about empirical vs deductive. That is YOUR red herring.
you dont even know what that means
It is about deductive AND empirical.
O go Gp0d take a logic please!
Joe: when you say science you mean the truth claims you derive from science,I mean the process of observing the world obviously that is in flux because the subject is in flux.
The subject is NOT in flux. That is simply not true. A small part of is, but the vast majority is well established, and has hardly changed since you were at school.\
the world is not in flux? remember a little thing called evolution? WE have flux all aroud us all the time.
Joe: Obviously it does for the question of God that's why it is theology.
No it does not. It is laughable that you are pretending that the question of God has been established with any verisimilitude at all.
you have not answered my arguments. 52 args prove God exists. 90% 0f humans believe in God less 2-% are atheists.theology gave rise to modern logic and modern science.There are theology departments at every major university in the world, over 50% modern geneticists believe in God.
Joe: I gave you four reasons to think it's wrong you never answered one of them
I freely admit I never answered any of them. And when I flipped them to argue against eternal existence, YOU could not answer any of them. But you conveniently ignore that, because all you really want is to delude yourself that you are right, and so you turn a blind eye to the counter arguments.
I ignored then because they weren't germane to the issues, they four of mine you ignored were righto down the middle of the topic..
Pix: A claim in science is only established after comprehensive testing to ensure it is good. Religion does not do that!
that is comparing apples and orgies,they two different fields, they have different goals,they use different kinds of information. But in my book I use 200 studies that back my arguments which is fear more than anywhere near the documentation used by 999% off atheists.
this is closed
dont worry Monday;s will be relevant
Post a Comment