Saturday, September 19, 2020

Why God's love is Universal Truth and Other Issues

[1]
Anonymous said... Pix: "I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.


God is love! That is the character of God, the image in which man is created; our ability to love is an outgrowth of God's character, God is eternal and therefore universal thus his love is universal. God's love is the principle upon which the universe was created, upon which morality is based.Those are logical extensions from basic Christian assumption.

when I complained about his assumption that Christians must prove God every time we talk about God he asserts that I am complaining about the questioning of God itself, as though Chritians can't stand for others to question their religion:

Px: Of course, when YOU are asked to support a claim about your religion it "is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid". Heaven forbid a Christian should ever have to do such a thing!And THIS is why religion is unreliable.


One would think its because it's not scientific now we find it's because Christians get tired of arguing for God every time they mention God. In fact he's ignoring the answer I gave pretending like I did not give it. Apparently pixie can't follow a simple sentence and he's always reading the worst motive into any Chritian statement.In response to the assertion that I never defend my belief in God I wrote:

Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,I've made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don't have to prove God every time I talk about Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,


To which he responds: "Which of those arguments is PROOF?" I am having a bit of trouble seeing this, First of all I never said I can prove God,I said I don't have to prove it. He takes that as a challenge that i can prove it; He asks which of my arguments is proof? Then he says:
I seem to remember you making a big deal about ration warrants. Why would you do that if you have PROOF? You would not. The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.


"Ration Warrant" (Rational warrant") essentially means a good reason to believe something. The point I've made many times in the past is that we don't have to prove the existence of God as long as we can provide a rational warrant for belief. The problem is atheists refuse to recognize a real reason. They can never be honest about facts or about logic. I never said I do absolute proof and never denied  about rational warrant.

Now we come to an issue we have been dancing around through this whole week. Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world.My argument was that the assumptions upon which laws were already accepted as proven when the were chosen as assumptions and thus they were not validated by science until after. That means other methods were used to select them. Pix never answers this argument instead he changes his position.

Joe: No they only base laws on established assumptions not unestablished;you are confusing the method that evolved out of science with the history of scientific thought. Scientific method had to evolve,Read the Burtt book.[2]br>
Instead of giving a rational answer he storms:"Can you actually make an argument? All you have is this insinuation, but to me it looks empty." I don't know what "insinuation" he's talking about; I made a clear argument that the basic assumptions that led to the development of the scientific method were not themselves validated by science when they were assumed. They used other methods such as logic and so might we. He takes my argument to mean that we can trust unproven methods:

"If you think Newton's laws, say, are based on an unproved assumption, say what it is. Say exactly how it is bad science. Present the reasoning." He's apparently tacked on to that misconstrued assumption that I'm saying that laws of Newton are bad science. Where he got that I do not know.

My argument is clearly that modern science is built upon assumptions that were not put in place by science since they were building blocs  that led to science.They were understood before science evolved.Thus there must be some pre scientific methods that can be trusted:

Joe: Do you really think Newton said I;m going to write some stuff and call them laws and someday someone will prove them and they will really be laws? Do you think Newton was an idiot? He did not make up bull shit then try to prove it he didn't call it laws before it was proven. You need to read Leviathan and the Air Pump.That is a book that gives us a good understanding of the process through which modern science evolved.[2]
 
Pix responds
 
"I think Newton's laws were a big part of establishing the assumption that the universe follows laws (if it was not done earlier). Newton established that at the same time as he established his laws." Good God. He thinks Newton had something to do with it. We need to contact the Smithsonian at once.Newton established  that the universe runs on laws at the the time he established his laws? Good timing, I;m going to make some laws then I'm going to establish that laws are important. if this guy really knew anything about ewton hewoudknowthahe was a Chritian,so he assumed God created laws to run the universe that had been assumed for 2000 years.
 
Then he mysteriously changes his position and wants to assert that he always asserted that the assumptions were proven to begin with.

After: "As long as we agree 'they make laws from proven assumptions', that is fine with me." Hey what does it matter what we say as Long as you say I'm right?

  he then cocedes:
 
"I do not know when they were established, but I guess before or by Newton. However - and this is important - I invented a hypothetical situation where it happened afterward. Do you see where I said 'Let us suppose'? That indicates that what follows is hypothetical." But he's still ignoring my point, Apparently he really can't follow a discussion,
 
He explains: "Even in the hypothetical situation in which the assumption was established later, the fact that it was established at some point means his laws are good, reliable science."
 
  I can see his point but there are problems. First he was not arguing hypothetically,we clearly had a dispute going about history not hypothetical.  I can see his point that it doesn't matter as long as they were validated later, but that does change his argument, because if they were validated first by other means and proven later by science that at least partially  validated  the other means as well

I want to go back to one thiung he said:"The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion" I do not advance a rational process that onvert sugestions to certain nor do I advocateone, Taht rocesshas been workedin ne,I havegone fronsuggestiontocertaindduetomy own experinces of God. God is realso myxperinesof God are real. [1] [2] the Birtt book

20 comments:

JBsptfn said...

He says religion is unreliable, but that's just it: Jesus came down to earth to fix a broken relationship (between us and God), not to start a new religion (although I think that Joe has a different definition of religion).

wayfarer said...

You will like this post

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/01/g-k-chesterton-modernity-stratford-caldecott.html

"Chesterton had a pretty fair grasp of where this unique and potentially lethal civilization we call “modernity” came from. It grew in the ruins of Christendom and nourished itself on what was left of the Gothic civilization. Again in The Thing (one of his most useful books on this topic) he writes: “The fact is this: that the modern world, with its modern movements, is living on its Catholic capital. It is using, and using up, the truths that remain to it out of the old treasury of Christendom; including, of course, many truths known to pagan antiquity but crystallized in Christendom.”

Also https://amzn.com/B00SW6XNMG

Anonymous said...

Joe has proof of God, except when he does not!

Joe: God is love! That is the character of God, the image in which man is created; our ability to love is an outgrowth of God's character, God is eternal and therefore universal thus his love is universal.

You start with this, stated as fact. Is it really a fact? Or just something you think is probably true?

You go on to imply you have proof of God:

Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,I've made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don't have to prove God every time I talk about Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,

That would be perfectly reasonable if you could simply link to a web page when God is proven, or at least well established - enough that you can claim "God is love! That is the character of God" as fact. But that is not the case, as you go on to admit.

Joe: First of all I never said I can prove God,I said I don't have to prove it.
The point I've made many times in the past is that we don't have to prove the existence of God as long as we can provide a rational warrant for belief.


Once again it comes down to this nebulous term "rational warrant". Creationists have a reason for thinking the universe is 6000 years old; they have "rational warrant". However, they are wrong. They ignore the far more numerous reasons to think it is billions of years wrong.

If I roll a dice I have good reason to think it will be a six - after all it has a six on one face. But five times out of six I will be wrong.

Rational warrant is a way to convert I have found one reason to think my pet theory is true into my pet theory is fact.

This very much plays into what we discussed last time about reliable knowledge. Rational warrant does NOT give reliable knowledge, science does.

As I said last time, and as you quoted above: The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Metaphysical underpinnings of science

Joe: Now we come to an issue we have been dancing around through this whole week. Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world.My argument was that the assumptions upon which laws were already accepted as proven when the were chosen as assumptions and thus they were not validated by science until after. That means other methods were used to select them. Pix never answers this argument instead he changes his position.

And there they are, more two straw men marching into battle.

Here is the first: "Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation"

What I actually said is "Let us suppose that..." I was setting it up as a hypothetical situation, and I pointed this out to you in the last discussion.

Here is the second: "thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world." I never said that. But no matter. You have your agenda to push, and truth be damned.

At the end of the day the metaphysical claim that the universe is amenable to scientific enquiry has been well-established. Therefore I see no problem with science using that as an underlying assumption. Certainly nothing you say calls that into question.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

JBsptfn said...
He says religion is unreliable, but that's just it: Jesus came down to earth to fix a broken relationship (between us and God), not to start a new religion (although I think that Joe has a different definition of religion).

Good point JB. Religion is a complex concept that is different things to different people. Maybe I'll do a post on it,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


"Chesterton had a pretty fair grasp of where this unique and potentially lethal civilization we call “modernity” came from. It grew in the ruins of Christendom and nourished itself on what was left of the Gothic civilization. Again in The Thing (one of his most useful books on this topic) he writes: “The fact is this: that the modern world, with its modern movements, is living on its Catholic capital. It is using, and using up, the truths that remain to it out of the old treasury of Christendom; including, of course, many truths known to pagan antiquity but crystallized in Christendom.”

He was great, There a lot more to him as a thinker than just mystery stories and apologetics, But his thinking is classically Catholic,

Anonymous said...

JBsptfn: He says religion is unreliable, but that's just it: Jesus came down to earth to fix a broken relationship (between us and God), not to start a new religion (although I think that Joe has a different definition of religion).

I have no idea what your point actually is. I am guessing you think I am wrong, but only because I know you are a Christian and I see Joe agrees with you; otherwise I might think you agreed with me (sure religion is unreliable, but that is just it, Jesus came to us to try to fix that, not to start a new religion).

Anonymous said...

wayfarer: You will like this post
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/01/g-k-chesterton-modernity-stratford-caldecott.html


Interesting that the article starts: "I’m pretty sure G.K. Chesterton is in heaven, and therefore a saint—or at least I hope so, since this gives much hope to the rest of us." To this guy hoping something is true is almost the same as being sure it is true. I think that is a great statement of how reliable religious knowledge actually is. Wishful thinking is all the evidence you need!

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe has proof of God, except when he does not!

Mu position has not changed, I have never claimed to prove God only to provide rational warrant for belief,

Joe: God is love! That is the character of God, the image in which man is created; our ability to love is an outgrowth of God's character, God is eternal and therefore universal thus his love is universal.

You start with this, stated as fact. Is it really a fact? Or just something you think is probably true?

PX: You go on to imply you have proof of God:

Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,I've made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don't have to prove God every time I talk about Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,

PX: That would be perfectly reasonable if you could simply link to a web page when God is proven, or at least well established - enough that you can claim "God is love! That is the character of God" as fact. But that is not the case, as you go on to admit.

I see the problem This version of Px doesn't know what words mean. I said I don't have to prove God every time I talk about him that does not mean I claim to have proven God only that I don't have to prove Him. I say slogan about rational warrant so often I expect people to remember it and assume when dealing withy my arguments,


Joe: First of all I never said I can prove God,I said I don't have to prove it.
The point I've made many times in the past is that we don't have to prove the existence of God as long as we can provide a rational warrant for belief.

PX: Once again it comes down to this nebulous term "rational warrant". Creationists have a reason for thinking the universe is 6000 years old; they have "rational warrant". However, they are wrong. They ignore the far more numerous reasons to think it is billions of years wrong.

If you knew anything at all about logic you would know all arguments must have a rational warrant. Any time someone thinks something is not a rational warrant, One can argue with rationality of a warrant. That.s what makes it apologetics,

PX:If I roll a dice I have good reason to think it will be a six - after all it has a six on one face. But five times out of six I will be wrong.

this jut proves you don't know shit about argumentation.

PX:Rational warrant is a way to convert I have found one reason to think my pet theory is true into my pet theory is fact.

this version of PiX knows nothing about argument. All arguments must have warrants, rational just means it uses logic. He tries to assert that I;ve used RW to prove y arguments I have quite clearly always asserted that RW is the alternative to having to prove, read what I've said, If this guy knew as much as the Old Pixie did he would appear to know a lot more,


PX:This very much plays into what we discussed last time about reliable knowledge. Rational warrant does NOT give reliable knowledge, science does.

That's like taking an argument with a premise you disagree with then asserting this proves premises in arguments don't work. RW is part of any argument as a s a premises,,

PX:As I said last time, and as you quoted above: The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.

As I said before, I never claimed the logic gives me certainty, the certainty comes from my personal experiences of God in my life. Those experiences were real and they gave me unshakable certainty, I can't transfer that to you, I can only give you the logic,


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

11:40 PM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Metaphysical underpinnings of science

Joe: Now we come to an issue we have been dancing around through this whole week. Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world.My argument was that the assumptions upon which laws were already accepted as proven when the were chosen as assumptions and thus they were not validated by science until after. That means other methods were used to select them. Pix never answers this argument instead he changes his position.

PX:And there they are, more two straw men marching into battle.

Still waiting fir you to tell me what a straw man is, what makes this a straw man?

PX: Here is the first: "Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation"

What I actually said is "Let us suppose that..." I was setting it up as a hypothetical situation, and I pointed this out to you in the last discussion.

You lair we had rhymes of argument before that in which you asserted the above position.

You need to be honest about your position because it will easy to prove.




Here is the second: "thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world." I never said that. But no matter. You have your agenda to push, and truth be damned.

you are playing games, that is exactly the position you had been defending,

Px:At the end of the day the metaphysical claim that the universe is amenable to scientific enquiry has been well-established.

That has never been the issue, that is not the position I clearly defended


Therefore I see no problem with science using that as an underlying assumption. Certainly nothing you say calls that into question.

suits me that's not what we were arguing about, "universe is amenable to scientific enquiry: does not mean disprove God or understanding everything

Anonymous said...

Joe: Mu position has not changed, I have never claimed to prove God only to provide rational warrant for belief,

But you take God's existence as fact whenever it suits you, and complain when I point that out!

You cannot have it both ways. Either you show it is a fact that God exists, or you cannot use the existence of god as a premise in an argument.

Joe: I see the problem This version of Px doesn't know what words mean. I said I don't have to prove God every time I talk about him that does not mean I claim to have proven God only that I don't have to prove Him. I say slogan about rational warrant so often I expect people to remember it and assume when dealing withy my arguments,

This epitomises the issue.

On the one hand you say "I don't have to prove God every time I talk about him" as though you have a proof, and on the other hand you say you merely have "rational warrant".

We see it again at work on your last post at CADRE:

(6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

Are you presenting "God is possessed of a loving nature" as a fact? Yes... and also no.

You want everyone to understand it as fact, but you know it cannot be supported, so when questioned, it is merely rational warrant. This is, of course, why you simply cannot answer those two questions.

You know full well that it does not follow from the preceding, but you dare not admit that.

And that means you cannot say whether step seven then follows or not. If you say it does, you have to decide where step six comes from. If you say no, step seven stands alone, utter unconnected to the preceding steps.

Joe: If you knew anything at all about logic you would know all arguments must have a rational warrant. Any time someone thinks something is not a rational warrant, One can argue with rationality of a warrant. That.s what makes it apologetics,

The problem is that the label "rational warrant" is being used to hide the failings in your argument.

Joe: this version of PiX knows nothing about argument. All arguments must have warrants, rational just means it uses logic. He tries to assert that I;ve used RW to prove y arguments I have quite clearly always asserted that RW is the alternative to having to prove, read what I've said, If this guy knew as much as the Old Pixie did he would appear to know a lot more,

You use "rational warrant" to cover just having some reason to think a claim is true, whether there are alternatives or not.

Then you change the definition, and claim "rational warrant" allows you to magically convert your claim into fact.

Neither use is how Toulmin uses the term, which is the background information that is assumed to be true. See here:
https://www.geneseo.edu/~bennett/Argument

I have been pointing this out for literally years.

Joe: That's like taking an argument with a premise you disagree with then asserting this proves premises in arguments don't work. RW is part of any argument as a s a premises,,

Toulmin's warrant is a part of any argument. Yours is not.

Joe: As I said before, I never claimed the logic gives me certainty, ...

And yet you routinely present these claims as facts.

Joe: ... the certainty comes from my personal experiences of God in my life. Those experiences were real and they gave me unshakable certainty, I can't transfer that to you, I can only give you the logic,

That would be the logic where even you cannot decide if one step follows from the previous or not?

I will pass on that.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
wayfarer: You will like this post
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/01/g-k-chesterton-modernity-stratford-caldecott.html

Interesting that the article starts: "I’m pretty sure G.K. Chesterton is in heaven, and therefore a saint—or at least I hope so, since this gives much hope to the rest of us." To this guy hoping something is true is almost the same as being sure it is true. I think that is a great statement of how reliable religious knowledge actually is. Wishful thinking is all the evidence you need!


You have no basis in fact or fiction for asserting that this is the kind of knowledge we should have. That involves judging an individual as to her eternal destiny we are not give to know that, that sort of thigh does not count, you are being stupid to base your objections to the faith on that kind of thing,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: Mu position has not changed, I have never claimed to prove God only to provide rational warrant for belief,

But you take God's existence as fact whenever it suits you, and complain when I point that out!

I just told you I have certainty, I can't pass it you but I have it for me,


Px:You cannot have it both ways. Either you show it is a fact that God exists, or you cannot use the existence of god as a premise in an argument.


That is lame. you really don't know what thinking is. of course I can know something and don;t hane a way to get you to believe, that doesn't mean I can make you believe me,


Joe: I see the problem This version of Px doesn't know what words mean. I said I don't have to prove God every time I talk about him that does not mean I claim to have proven God only that I don't have to prove Him. I say slogan about rational warrant so often I expect people to remember it and assume when dealing withy my arguments,

Px;This epitomises the issue.

On the one hand you say "I don't have to prove God every time I talk about him" as though you have a proof, and on the other hand you say you merely have "rational warrant".

you are readying into the words the meaning because you have no real arguments. I never said that but you wish i had

PX:We see it again at work on your last post at CADRE:

(6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

Are you presenting "God is possessed of a loving nature" as a fact? Yes... and also no.

Of course it a fact because God is a fact. I cant prove that but I am convinced for myself


You want everyone to understand it as fact, but you know it cannot be supported, so when questioned, it is merely rational warrant. This is, of course, why you simply cannot answer those two questions.

I sure as hell can support it. I cant prove it but I can support it. Rational warrant is a valid reason to bleve it;s not a less than valid position,


PX:You know full well that it does not follow from the preceding, but you dare not admit that.

sure as hell does,!!! Give a reason bozo sating sois no proof.that is also not my only argument

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

And that means you cannot say whether step seven then follows or not. If you say it does, you have to decide where step six comes from. If you say no, step seven stands alone, utter unconnected to the preceding steps.

That proves to me that you know nothing abut logic, the argent about
god as judge is not a premise for the moral argument hat shoots down c certain objections, so you have no basis,


Joe: If you knew anything at all about logic you would know all arguments must have a rational warrant. Any time someone thinks something is not a rational warrant, One can argue with rationality of a warrant. That.s what makes it apologetics,

The problem is that the label "rational warrant" is being used to hide the failings in your argument.

you have proven no failings

Joe: this version of PiX knows nothing about argument. All arguments must have warrants, rational just means it uses logic. He tries to assert that I;ve used RW to prove y arguments I have quite clearly always asserted that RW is the alternative to having to prove, read what I've said, If this guy knew as much as the Old Pixie did he would appear to know a lot more,

You use "rational warrant" to cover just having some reason to think a claim is true, whether there are alternatives or not.

It's a term used by many logicians such as Stephen Toulmin.quote; "Warrant: the underlying connection between the claim and evidence, or why the evidence supports the claim. Backing: tells audience why the warrant is a rational one. In scholarly essays, the warrant and backing would be the areas most supported by factual evidence to support the legitimacy of their assertion."https://www.google.com/search?q=logician+whio+writesabout+rationak+awrrant&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS644US656&oq=logician+whio+writesabout+rationak+awrrant&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l4.8687j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Then you change the definition, and claim "rational warrant" allows you to magically convert your claim into fact.


You know damn well you have no quote from me saying that I never have said it

Neither use is how Toulmin uses the term, which is the background information that is assumed to be true. See here:
https://www.geneseo.edu/~bennett/Argument

Yes it close to Toulmin's use

pxI have been pointing this out for literally years.

One of you has, but ts irrelevant,


Joe: That's like taking an argument with a premise you disagree with then asserting this proves premises in arguments don't work. RW is part of any argument as a s a premises,,

Toulmin's warrant is a part of any argument. Yours is not.


how could mine not be part of an argent when I am using it as part my argument?

Joe: As I said before, I never claimed the logic gives me certainty, ...

And yet you routinely present these claims as facts.

sow me one?

Joe: ... the certainty comes from my personal experiences of God in my life. Those experiences were real and they gave me unshakable certainty, I can't transfer that to you, I can only give you the logic,


PXThat would be the logic where even you cannot decide if one step follows from the previous or not?

U never had any doubt about it and I answered you several times. I also refused to paly your stupid game, that's why you're ranting about it now, you are desperate for a win


PxI will pass on that.

you better

Anonymous said...

Joe: I just told you I have certainty, I can't pass it you but I have it for me,

Okay, so you admit you have nothing on your web pages to support that degree of certainty, right?

Joe: That is lame. you really don't know what thinking is. of course I can know something and don;t hane a way to get you to believe, that doesn't mean I can make you believe me,

Either your claim can be established beyond reasonable doubt or not. I think we have now established that it cannot. You are certain it is true, but you have not established it as fact. This is why you have to resort to your rational warrant BS.

You are certain God exists, due to your personal experiences. You use that certainty as the basis of your arguments that God exist. Then you wrap it up in rational warrant to give it a veneer of logic. Scratch below the veneer and, well, we find an argument where you cannot even say if a a statement follows on from a previous statement on not.

Joe: Of course it a fact because God is a fact. I cant prove that but I am convinced for myself

Exactly.

Joe: I sure as hell can support it. I cant prove it but I can support it. Rational warrant is a valid reason to bleve it;s not a less than valid position,

Right. You cannot prove it, but you are certain it is true, so you find some rationalisation for that belief, label as "rational warrant", then claim it as fact.

Joe: That proves to me that you know nothing abut logic, the argent about
god as judge is not a premise for the moral argument hat shoots down c certain objections, so you have no basis,


I know that every statement in a logical argument either does or does not follow from the preceding statements. There is never a time when it kind of does amd kind of does not. That is exclusive to your pseudo-logic.

Joe: It's a term used by many logicians such as Stephen Toulmin.

I know, I said that already, when I pointed out use you it quite differently to Toulmin.

Joe: Yes it close to Toulmin's use

It is significantly different. I thought you did this stuff at university. Did you miss this lecture?

Pix: Toulmin's warrant is a part of any argument. Yours is not.

Joe: how could mine not be part of an argent when I am using it as part my argument?

Yours is part of some very specific arguments, Toulmin's is part of ANY argument.

Your use:

Mystical experiences are real
Therefore we have a reason - rational warrant - to believe God exists

Toulmin's warrant is the background information - what we mean by mystical experiences for example, and how they are determined or measured. Stuff often left unspoken, that we likely both agree on, so generally not even noticed.

Joe: U never had any doubt about it and I answered you several times. I also refused to paly your stupid game, that's why you're ranting about it now, you are desperate for a win

Your supposed answers were all dodges, and you know it. Two simple yes/no questions, and you were unable to say yes or not to either.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: I just told you I have certainty, I can't pass it you but I have it for me,

Pix: Okay, so you admit you have nothing on your web pages to support that degree of certainty, right?

Where did I say that? I say I can't give you my experiences, you assume this means I can't support my ideas. brilliant

Joe: That is lame. you really don't know what thinking is. of course I can know something and don;t hane a way to get you to believe, that doesn't mean I can make you believe me,

Pix:Either your claim can be established beyond reasonable doubt or not.

But to understand that you would have to understand logic so I guess you have to take my word for it.



I think we have now established that it cannot. You are certain it is true, but you have not established it as fact. This is why you have to resort to your rational warrant BS.

what is "it?" the existence of God? that's an existential fact.

You are certain God exists, due to your personal experiences. You use that certainty as the basis of your arguments that God exist. Then you wrap it up in rational warrant to give it a veneer of logic.

I never tried to pass off Rational warrant as a big magic trick. a rational reason baked by logic. Most people who try to pass off their ignorance as knowledge are afraid of terms they don't understand, so what you just said is nothing More than the fact that I have experiences you can't have and I try brodge the gap with logic. No crime there.


Scratch below the veneer and, well, we find an argument where you cannot even say if a a statement follows on from a previous statement on not.

and you don't know what an extension is

Joe: Of course it a fact because God is a fact. I cant prove that but I am convinced for myself

Px:Exactly.

so what? I still know it, its still true. you could know it if you weren't opposed it,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...



Joe: I sure as hell can support it. I cant prove it but I can support it. Rational warrant is a valid reason to bleve it;s not a less than valid position,

Right. You cannot prove it, but you are certain it is true, so you find some rationalisation for that belief, label as "rational warrant", then claim it as fact.


I did not invent the term rational warrant if you knew anything about logic you would know that. Why call it "rationalization. Do you know what that means? why is it a rationalization just because i can't prove it? I can prove it to a rational mind,I can't prove it to the God hater club

Joe: That proves to me that you know nothing abut logic, the argent about
god as judge is not a premise for the moral argument hat shoots down c certain objections, so you have no basis,

Px:I know that every statement in a logical argument either does or does not follow from the preceding statements. There is never a time when it kind of does amd kind of does not. That is exclusive to your pseudo-logic.

That is true of any statement, it does not disprove my argument,

Joe: It's a term used by many logicians such as Stephen Toulmin.

I know, I said that already, when I pointed out use you it quite differently to Toulmin.

Joe: Yes it close to Toulmin's use

It is significantly different. I thought you did this stuff at university. Did you miss this lecture?\
what's different about it? show me why it's different?

Pix: Toulmin's warrant is a part of any argument. Yours is not.

No sorry that is not the difference, what would ever make you think mine is not part of an argument? try to portend like you know a little more logic

Joe: how could mine not be part of an argent when I am using it as part my argument?

PX Yours is part of some very specific arguments, Toulmin's is part of ANY argument.

ahahahaahahaahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaaahaahaaha...

Your use:

Mystical experiences are real
Therefore we have a reason - rational warrant - to believe God exists

Toulmin's warrant is the background information - what we mean by mystical experiences for example, and how they are determined or measured. Stuff often left unspoken, that we likely both agree on, so generally not even noticed.

ahahahaahahahaahahadonp;t you even have the brains to look it up? that has nothing to do with any thing he says!OMG!


Toimin on Rational Warrant: "A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit. It answers the question 'Why does that data mean your claim is true?'
For example:
A hearing aid helps most people to hear better.The warrant may be simple and it may also be a longer argument, with additional sub-elements including those described below.
Warrants may be based on logos, ethos or pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener.
In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and hence unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.[1] [2]"


Toulmin quotes:
[1] "Toulmin's argumemt Model" Chaining Minds on line resource, website, URL:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm (accessed 8/1/'16)
for documentatiom they cite thevfollowing:

[2] Toulmin, S. (1969). The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press




7th Stooge said...

I've mentioned this before: If love is defined as "willing the good of the other," that would suggest that the good is logically prior to love. So the moral law couldn't be based on love but upon the good.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

No it doesn't. Explaining what love entails not what what causes it. Love is better thought of as the will to the good of the other not butterflies in the stomach.

7th Stooge said...

Joe:No it doesn't. Explaining what love entails not what what causes it. Love is better thought of as the will to the good of the other not butterflies in the stomach.

7th: Yes, that's why I said it's logically prior, not causally prior. Love requires the good, not the other way around.