tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post94311758014470887..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Answer to Theodicy: Soteriological DramaJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10946286156446899332018-08-31T09:32:31.334-07:002018-08-31T09:32:31.334-07:00we don't have to observe the world to from ass...<i>we don't have to observe the world to from associations meaning</i><br /><br />- Sorry, Joe, but science refutes YOU.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43929845372909463802018-08-30T21:34:23.813-07:002018-08-30T21:34:23.813-07:00im-skeptical said...
Obviously you can't obser...im-skeptical said...<br />Obviously you can't observe the meaning of word.where do you go out in nature to see the definition of married in the wild?<br /><br />- Of course you can't observe a meaning in the wild. Why is that? Because meaning is a construct of the mind.<br /><br /><br /><b>I already said that, you disagreed when I said it, that just proves my point about a prori knowledge,</b><br /><br /><br /> Meaning is something we develop by making associations (which are actual physical connections) in the brain. Associations between what, you might ask? It's between the mental impressions (or concepts) of things we have observed. Without these mental associations, there would be no understanding of how things relate, fit together, interact with one another, etc. As young children, we hear words. Those words become part of our collection of mental impressions. When words are associated with other impressions (or concepts) in our brain, and that's how they gain meaning to us.<br /><br /><b>you just contradicted your self</b><br /><br /><br />You hear the word "mama". You see the face, hear the voice, feel the warmth and comfort of the mother. These things become associated in the brain. Only then does the word "mama" have any real meaning to the child. And so it goes with every single word in our vocabulary. All of it derives from information we gained through our senses.<br /><br /><b>Even if you never saw your mother or any woman you could be told what the word means. So you have no basis for your gibberish you are contradicting yourself. You just said a construct doesn't require observation of the world and now you say it does.</b><br /><br />"Of course you can't observe a meaning in the wild. Why is that? Because meaning is a construct of the mind..."<br /><br /><b>we don't have to observe the world to from associations meaning<br /><br /><br />you have been refuted,case closed,this topic closed.</b><br /><br />10:04 AM Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1469195773838243432018-08-30T10:04:22.477-07:002018-08-30T10:04:22.477-07:00Obviously you can't observe the meaning of wor...<i>Obviously you can't observe the meaning of word.where do you go out in nature to see the definition of married in the wild?</i><br />- Of course you can't observe a meaning in the wild. Why is that? Because meaning is a construct of the mind. Meaning is something we develop by making associations (which are actual physical connections) in the brain. Associations between what, you might ask? It's between the mental impressions (or concepts) of things we have observed. Without these mental associations, there would be no understanding of how things relate, fit together, interact with one another, etc. As young children, we hear words. Those words become part of our collection of mental impressions. When words are associated with other impressions (or concepts) in our brain, and that's how they gain meaning to us. <br /><br />You hear the word "mama". You see the face, hear the voice, feel the warmth and comfort of the mother. These things become associated in the brain. Only then does the word "mama" have any real meaning to the child. And so it goes with every single word in our vocabulary. All of it derives from information we gained through our senses.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11739123342383027082018-08-29T22:07:43.209-07:002018-08-29T22:07:43.209-07:00"This isn't a matter of philosophy. It a ..."This isn't a matter of philosophy. It a matter of science. These things are observable. They have been studies extensively by science. That's something no philosopher can argue against (unless he wants to stick to some unrealistic fantasy)."<br /><br />No again with the science worship. this is just ideology talking you have reason no logic you are just mouthing arbitrary rule you;ve been brain washed to obey, 'bow before the god science now!<br /><br />Obviously you can't observe the meaning of word.where do you go out in nature to see the definition of married in the wild?<br /><br />Do you see I;m using logic on it? so it's not just observing natuer because I'm reasoing about it,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7732242015115918892018-08-29T11:09:44.635-07:002018-08-29T11:09:44.635-07:00This isn't a matter of philosophy. It a matte...This isn't a matter of philosophy. It a matter of science. These things are observable. They have been studies extensively by science. That's something no philosopher can argue against (unless he wants to stick to some unrealistic fantasy).im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88205217908372197912018-08-29T10:20:25.026-07:002018-08-29T10:20:25.026-07:00Blogger im-skeptical said...
As I said before noth...<br />Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory says there is no God or God plays no role in this. Since that beyond the domain of science.<br /><br /><br />- Then you don't understand the theory. The theory does not preclude the existence of a God, but as I said before, it describes how nature (without guidance or assistance from any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world. If you don't get that, you don't understand it.<br /><br /><b>It doesn't go back to the very beginning either.</b><br /><br />Knowing that husband means married man is not derived from the sense. An analogy to what you are saying is like claiming to be an expert on mining because you use iron.<br /><br /><br />- I tried again and again to explain my position. You just don't get it. Knowing the definition of words and the application of logical rules is indeed derived from the senses.<br /><br /><b>Skep no philosopher credits what you are saying,it;s diametrically contradicted by the sources I;'quoted. you have no source to back it up,show me one philospher who agrees with you. you can/t.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43656608007709621122018-08-29T10:14:58.805-07:002018-08-29T10:14:58.805-07:00Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.
-...Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.<br />- That's right, dude. And it is the only approach to epistemology that is 100% fully consistent with what we know of reality.<br /><br /><b>No it;snot, that ridiculous. tons of people have fucked up perceptions of the world all the time,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89374865124105028942018-08-29T07:43:01.452-07:002018-08-29T07:43:01.452-07:00Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.
-...<i> Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.</i><br />- That's right, dude. And it is the only approach to epistemology that is 100% fully consistent with what we know of reality.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17597740022113385832018-08-29T07:38:34.614-07:002018-08-29T07:38:34.614-07:00As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory sa...<i>As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory says there is no God or God plays no role in this. Since that beyond the domain of science.</i><br />- Then you don't understand the theory. The theory does not preclude the existence of a God, but as I said before, it describes how nature (without guidance or assistance from any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world. If you don't get that, you don't understand it.<br /><br /><i>Knowing that husband means married man is not derived from the sense. An analogy to what you are saying is like claiming to be an expert on mining because you use iron.</i><br />- I tried again and again to explain my position. You just don't get it. Knowing the definition of words and the application of logical rules is indeed derived from the senses.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-32646961573423717772018-08-28T22:14:43.344-07:002018-08-28T22:14:43.344-07:00Blogger im-skeptical said...
why do I have to agre...<br />Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />why do I have to agree with it to understand it?[evolution? teleology in evolution] You really think if one merely understands it they must agree? i just said what it is I disagree with so obviously I do understand it<br /><br />- Many people who claim to accept evolution theory don't understand it. There are plenty of Christians who say that their position is fully compatible with science and that evolution is actually guided by God. Those two statements are contradictory. The scientific theory describes how nature (without any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world - not how an intelligent God might do it. If you agree with that, fine.<br /><br /><b>No it doesn't. As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory says there is no God or God plays no role in this. Since that beyond the domain of science. <br />there's a place or methodological naturalism, but we are not talking about being a scientist we are talking about what I what I believe about the world. There is no contradiction in believing that God took a hand in evolutionary development it's only a question of what kind if a hand.</b><br /><br />speaking of observed in sense data obviously attention<br /><br /><br />- I was talking about how everything we know is ultimately derived from the senses, which is the empiricist position.<br /><br /><b>Knowing that husband means married man is not derived from the sense. An analogy to what you are saying is like claiming to be an expert on mining because you use iron.</b><br /><br /> You were disagreeing with me, claiming that you have some other kind of knowledge that lets you claim you know about the existence of God. That is something empiricists disagree with. We believe that all knowledge (including things that you call intuitive or a priori) is actually derived from the senses.<br /><br /><b>I'm not an empiricist. Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-41048433081780037642018-08-28T12:35:40.405-07:002018-08-28T12:35:40.405-07:00why do I have to agree with it to understand it? Y...<i>why do I have to agree with it to understand it? You really think if one merely understands it they must agree? i just said what it is I disagree with so obviously I do understand it</i><br />- Many people who claim to accept evolution theory don't understand it. There are plenty of Christians who say that their position is fully compatible with science and that evolution is actually guided by God. Those two statements are contradictory. The scientific theory describes how nature (without any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world - not how an intelligent God might do it. If you agree with that, fine.<br /><br /><i>speaking of observed in sense data obviously attention</i><br />- I was talking about how everything we know is ultimately derived from the senses, which is the empiricist position. You were disagreeing with me, claiming that you have some other kind of knowledge that lets you claim you know about the existence of God. That is something empiricists disagree with. We believe that all knowledge (including things that you call intuitive or a priori) is actually derived from the senses.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-41157626374687039082018-08-27T21:50:10.663-07:002018-08-27T21:50:10.663-07:00That is totally foreign to the experiences of my c...That is totally foreign to the experiences of my childhood.In fact both are anathema to my childhood faith.<br /><br />- I don't believe it. We live in a society that practically forces belief in God on all of us.<br /><br /><b>I did say God was anathema I was referring to miracles and philosophy,</b><br /><br />you can see it happening in front of your face on any message board where atheists are actively involved in argument as a group<br /><br />- That makes no difference. I was already an atheist before I ever looked at any of these web sites and before I ever read any atheist books. I was not indoctrinated with it. I was raised as a Christian.<br /><br /><b>You are indoctrinated now</b><br /><br />There's no official Bible of evolution that says "now class there is no mind doing things." <br /><br />- This isn't a schoolroom. But I understand the scientific theory, and apparently you don't. It specifically says that evolution is unguided, or undirected.<br /><br /><b>why do I have to agree with it to understand it? You really think if one merely understands it they must agree? i just said what it is I disagree with so obviously I do understand it,</b><br /><br />No one says God is observed.<br /><br />- You just got done telling me that: "God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation" You are apparently saying that God is observed in a way that is different from the way we observe everything else. And that IS special pleading.<br /><br /><b>speaking of observed in sense data obviously attention,<br /><br />btw let's drop the a priori from this discussion that's why i gave it it's own thread.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46567868603726580622018-08-27T21:42:38.106-07:002018-08-27T21:42:38.106-07:00Blogger im-skeptical said...
Right, that's why...<br />Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />Right, that's why you don't have to observe nature to derive them that supports my point.<br />- Yes, you do. Abstracta are generalizations of what we observe.<br /><br /><b>No. you don't count knowing the terminus as observation of nature.So knowing husbands are married men does not mean you are observing the world; Here is the clue,I don't have to ever observe a s husband to know he's married.<br /><br />You observe people co-habiting but that doesn't make them married. The concept of marriage is a construct,all in the mind.</b><br /><br /><br />that's why it's a priroi truth, that's what a proiori means<br /><br />- Some (but not all) philosophers say that a definition constitutes a priori knowledge. My point is more basic than that. I'm saying that everything we know is ultimately derived from observation.<br /><br /><b>that doesn't change the fact that there are a priori truths.</b><br /><br />I already covered that Skep so did the article, that does not count as observing the world. Knowing what the words mean is not observing the world.<br /><br />- I disagree. We wouldn't know any definitions without observing the world.<br /><br /><b>That's oblivious bullshit,I just showed a sentence in which the referents don;t even exist because but the statements are still true.</b><br /><br /><b>Skepie</b>You should learn something about cognitive development and language acquisition. All words we know are only understood in the context of other words and concepts that are grounded in our experience of the world.<br /><br /><br /><b>i read Jean Piaget 19. That does not not change the fact that the truth part of a priori reasoning is not acquired from observing nature.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72831245767416715112018-08-27T08:04:35.757-07:002018-08-27T08:04:35.757-07:00Right, that's why you don't have to observ...<i>Right, that's why you don't have to observe nature to derive them that supports my point.</i><br />- Yes, you do. Abstracta are generalizations of what we observe.<br /><br /><i>that's why it's a priroi truth, that's what a proiori means</i><br />- Some (but not all) philosophers say that a definition constitutes a priori knowledge. My point is more basic than that. I'm saying that everything we know is ultimately derived from observation.<br /><br /><i>I already covered that Skep so did the article, that does not count as observing the world. Knowing what the words mean is not observing the world.</i><br />- I disagree. We wouldn't know any definitions without observing the world. You should learn something about cognitive development and language acquisition. All words we know are only understood in the context of other words and concepts that are grounded in our experience of the world.<br /><br /><i>That is totally foreign to the experiences of my childhood.In fact both are anathema to my childhood faith.</i><br />- I don't believe it. We live in a society that practically forces belief in God on all of us.<br /><br /><i>you can see it happening in front of your face on any message board where atheists are actively involved in argument as a group</i><br />- That makes no difference. I was already an atheist before I ever looked at any of these web sites and before I ever read any atheist books. I was not indoctrinated with it. I was raised as a Christian.<br /><br /><i>There's no official Bible of evolution that says "now class there is no mind doing things." </i><br />- This isn't a schoolroom. But I understand the scientific theory, and apparently you don't. It specifically says that evolution is unguided, or undirected.<br /><br /><i>No one says God is observed.</i><br />- You just got done telling me that: <b>"God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation"</b> You are apparently saying that God is observed in a way that is different from the way we observe everything else. And that IS special pleading.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70235719115806409772018-08-26T21:47:13.132-07:002018-08-26T21:47:13.132-07:00"A priori justification is a type of epistemi..."A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience."<br />- And in another sense, completely dependent on what we have observed, which gives us the basis to say that logical rules apply.<br /><br /><br /><b>No Explicitly not the Clarice says not,they don;t count knowing the language as observation of the world.</b><br /><br />how do you explain the fact that I chucked what my parents told me and became an atheist<br /><br />- It's not how you were indoctrinated. That's why you have returned to what you had drilled into your head as a child.<br /><br /><br /> <b>Actually I didn't return to it, I was not raised with either charismatic theology or liberal theology of people like Tillich. That is totally foreign to the experiences of my childhood.In fact both are anathema to my childhood faith. The reasom I turned to God is because the experiences I had warranted it</b><br /><br />Naturally you don't think you are that's the first thing brianwashers tell you to think<br /><br />- How and when do you suppose this atheist brainwashing took place? I was raised as a Christian. And nobody taught me to be an atheist.<br /><br /><b>you can see it happening in front of your face on any message board where atheists are actively involved in argument as a group. I have castellated and analyzed it all on Atheist watch.</b><br /><br />Martain Reese says it is. He took FT every effusively. Andre Lind took it very serology.<br /><br />- It's a religious argument. It argues that there's some intelligence (aka GOD) tuning things. (And inflation theory specifically rejects that, as does evolution theory and any other scientific theory - because that ain't science.)<br /><br /><b>No it doesn't, There's no official Bible of evolution that says "now class there is no mind doing things." Scientists could say that if they wanted to and they stupidly rule out teleology because ironically the Christian Boyle wrote it into the works of his rules for experimentation to pander to the notion of objectivity. He really wanted to use science as Christian apologetic but he was so sure Newton had secured a place for design argument that he could afford to Rukeyser out things like mind in experimentation,</b><br /><br />where do you get that idea? God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation<br /><br />- I know the definition of special pleading. You use different rules to say that God is "observed".<br /><br /><b>that is not special pleading. No one says God is observed. The very same rules that rule out making a direct claim to observation of God supports the idea that that we can conjecture God as reasonableness hypothesis.<br /><br />so far you have demonstrated a very tenuous understanding of logical rules,</b><br /><br />2:43 PM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18581720222422608172018-08-26T21:46:38.938-07:002018-08-26T21:46:38.938-07:00Blogger im-skeptical said...
no you can observe th...Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />no you can observe the content, but can't observe an abstract rule of logic<br /><br />- Abstracta are creations of the mind. They don't exist in nature.<br /><br /><b>Right, that's why you don't have to observe nature to derive them that supports my point.</b><br /><br /><b>Metacrock</b>there are no premises in nature,read the quote from IEP on the next thread you see you are wrong. You look it up in Flew and in Stanford they all say you are wrong. a priori tuth is truth that is true by definition not by observation<br /><br /><br />- That's true, but you are not following my argument. I still disagree with the idea that we know anything a priori. What's true by definition is not an observed fact of nature. It's true just we agree on it by convention.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's why it's a priroi truth, that's what a proiori means.</b><br /><br />you only have to know the language to know it's true,all husbands are married men, you don't have to observe all married men<br /><br /><br />- No you don't have to observe them all. But you have to know the definition of the word, which is something you learn.<br /><br /><b>I already covered that Skep so did the article, that does not count as observing the world. Knowing what the words mean is not observing the world.</b><br /><br /><br /> More to the point, this is just a specific instance of the law of the excluded middle. <br /><br /><b>no that is not excluded middle it has nothing to do with it,</b><br /><br />A proposition and its negation can't both be true. So someone can't be both married and unmarried. How do we know this without observing all married men? That's a ridiculous question. How do we know that gravity applies to all massive bodies in space? We have observed enough of reality to know that the rule holds.<br /><br /><b>you can stretch it to include LEM but you have to use that to explain what's going on.But Ok that fits,I wont quibble,</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60555215052664275322018-08-26T14:43:46.672-07:002018-08-26T14:43:46.672-07:00no you can observe the content, but can't obse...<i>no you can observe the content, but can't observe an abstract rule of logic</i><br />- Abstracta are creations of the mind. They don't exist in nature.<br /><br /><i>there are no premises in nature,read the quote from IEP on the next thread you see you are wrong. You look it up in Flew and in Stanford they all say you are wrong. a priori tuth is truth that is true by definition not by observation</i><br />- That's true, but you are not following my argument. I still disagree with the idea that we know anything a priori. What's true by definition is not an observed fact of nature. It's true just we agree on it by convention.<br /><br /><i>you only have to know the language to know it's true,all husbands are married men, you don't have to observe all married men</i><br />- No you don't have to observe them all. But you have to know the definition of the word, which is something you learn. More to the point, this is just a specific instance of the law of the excluded middle. A proposition and its negation can't both be true. So someone can't be both married and unmarried. How do we know this without observing all married men? That's a ridiculous question. How do we know that gravity applies to all massive bodies in space? We have observed enough of reality to know that the rule holds.<br /><br /><i>"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience."</i><br />- And in another sense, completely dependent on what we have observed, which gives us the basis to say that logical rules apply.<br /><br /><i>how do you explain the fact that I chucked what my parents told me and became an atheist</i><br />- It's not how you were indoctrinated. That's why you have returned to what you had drilled into your head as a child.<br /><br /><i>Naturally you don't think you are that's the first thing brianwashers tell you to think</i><br />- How and when do you suppose this atheist brainwashing took place? I was raised as a Christian. And nobody taught me to be an atheist.<br /><br /><i>Martain Reese says it is. He took FT every effusively. Andre Lind took it very serology.</i><br />- It's a religious argument. It argues that there's some intelligence (aka GOD) tuning things. (And inflation theory specifically rejects that, as does evolution theory and any other scientific theory - because that ain't science.)<br /><br /><i>where do you get that idea? God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation</i><br />- I know the definition of special pleading. You use different rules to say that God is "observed".im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63823323564502082562018-08-26T11:51:34.427-07:002018-08-26T11:51:34.427-07:00There is no universal consensus in science on that...There is no universal consensus in science on that point. Many have tried to refute it many have defended it. Nothing is established as fact.<br /><br />- It is a religious argument - not a scientific one. And real scientists (not driven by religious ideology) have completely debunked the logic of the fine-tuning argument.<br /><br /><b>No that is utter bunk. Martain Reese says it is. He took FT every effusively. Andre Lind took it very serology. Scientists who started inflationary theory have reniged on that because they had to use FT to make inflation work,</b><br /><br />Since God is not given in sense data then it's not a fair test to make empirical observation the litmus test for God.<br /><br /><br />- It's not fair to carve out an epistemological exception for something that you believe despite the fact that it has no basis in observation. In logical argumentation, that's what we call special pleading.<br /><br /><b>where do you get that idea? God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation,<br /><br />Tons of scientific ideas are accepted without given in sense data,strimg theory has no empirical backing</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50328794940452979502018-08-26T11:43:08.237-07:002018-08-26T11:43:08.237-07:00m-skeptical said...
If P then Q. P :. Q.
- You mi...m-skeptical said...<br />If P then Q. P :. Q. <br />- You miss my point. How do you know that this is true? The only basis you have is the fact that it agrees with the reality that you have observed all your life. It isn't a priori at all.<br /><br /><b>no you can observe the content, but can't observe an abstract rule of logic</b><br /><br />No can't you observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.<br /><br /><br />- Yes, that's exactly what we do. It's just observation of the reality of our world.<br /><br /><br /><b>there are no premises in nature,read the quote from IEP on the next thread you see you are wrong. You look it up in Flew and in Stanford they all say you are wrong. a priori tuth is truth that is true by definition not by observation, you only have to know the language to know it's true,all husbands are married men, you don't have to observe all married men,</b><br /><br />not does not; mean there are't a prori truths. It's just taht design argument is not one of them,<br /><br />- There is reality and then there is our understanding of reality. Our understanding of reality is not a priori. It comes from observing the world. <br /><br /><b>you can know all husbands are married men without ever seeing a husband,</b><br /><br /><br />This is a matter of epistemology, which deals with the question of what we know and how we know it. There is no a priori knowledge. <br /><br /><b>you asre wrong, read the aritlce,"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience." Stanford </b><br /><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/" rel="nofollow"><b>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/</b></a><br /><br /><br />You believe in God because that's what you were told before you could even think. You don't remember that now - you think it's a priori knowledge. But you're wrong. If you hadn't been raised in a society that drills that into your head, you wouldn't believe it now.<br /><br /><b>how do you explain the fact that I chucked what my parents told me and became an atheist, I would be one still but I had an experience where I called out to God in desperation and he answered me. Now I admit I called to the God of my parents but he did Nasser,in a clear and undeniable,way. Your skepticism is the result of brainwashing due to an ideology you swallowed hook,line, and sinker</b><br /><br />They are only unjustified because you don't want to accept the truth of the conclusions they mandate.<br /><br />- I accept any truth that is mandated by justified premises and valid logic.<br /><br /><b>how so? you don;t even know what logic is, you have it confused with science. when when you are confronted with evidence that contradicts your brainwashing you jsut refuse to believe it even without any sort of evince,like theway you areso suremny studies are bad when you have;t any of them,</b><br /><br />that is your ideological brain washing that tells you to say that because it's how you ratiocination ignoring facts that go against your ideology.<br /><br />- I'm not the one who's brainwashed.<br /><br /><b>Naturally you don't think you are that's the first thing brianwashers tell you to think</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68554303364283756212018-08-26T08:47:11.684-07:002018-08-26T08:47:11.684-07:00If P then Q. P :. Q.
- You miss my point. How do...<i>If P then Q. P :. Q. </i><br />- You miss my point. How do you know that this is true? The only basis you have is the fact that it agrees with the reality that you have observed all your life. It isn't a priori at all.<br /><br /><i>No can't you observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.</i><br />- Yes, that's exactly what we do. It's just observation of the reality of our world.<br /><br /><i>not does not; mean there are't a prori truths. It's just taht design argument is not one of them,</i><br />- There is reality and then there is our understanding of reality. Our understanding of reality is not a priori. It comes from observing the world. This is a matter of epistemology, which deals with the question of what we know and how we know it. There is no a priori knowledge. You believe in God because that's what you were told before you could even think. You don't remember that now - you think it's a priori knowledge. But you're wrong. If you hadn't been raised in a society that drills that into your head, you wouldn't believe it now.<br /><br /><i>They are only unjustified because you don't want to accept the truth of the conclusions they mandate.</i><br />- I accept any truth that is mandated by justified premises and valid logic.<br /><br /><i>that is your ideological brain washing that tells you to say that because it's how you ratiocination ignoring facts that go against your ideology.</i><br />- I'm not the one who's brainwashed.<br /><br /><i>There is no universal consensus in science on that point. Many have tried to refute it many have defended it. Nothing is established as fact.</i><br />- It is a religious argument - not a scientific one. And real scientists (not driven by religious ideology) have completely debunked the logic of the fine-tuning argument.<br /><br /><i>Since God is not given in sense data then it's not a fair test to make empirical observation the litmus test for God.</i><br />- It's not fair to carve out an epistemological exception for something that you believe despite the fact that it has no basis in observation. In logical argumentation, that's what we call special pleading.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-65952452119791479252018-08-25T23:19:48.034-07:002018-08-25T23:19:48.034-07:00I am making a post on this on Sunday so we can dis...I am making a post on this on Sunday so we can discuss it more since it is not exactly on topic for this one.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34760539242938196112018-08-25T23:13:47.402-07:002018-08-25T23:13:47.402-07:00- I rationalize my beliefs based on what is observ...<br />- I rationalize my beliefs based on what is observed in the world. You rationalize yours based on nothing that has ever been observed.<br /><br /><b>No you don't. You deny observations that go against your ideology. moreover that little tag "You rationalize yours based on nothing that has ever been observed" that is your ideological brain washing that tells you to say that because it's how you ratiocination ignoring facts that go against your ideology. <br /><br />Why would I believe something without facts backing it up observational(assuming what I observe is fact)? You can't accept my observations because you don't want the conclusion they mandate.</b><br /><br /><br /> And scientists have refuted that fine-tuning argument again and again. I myself have refuted it strictly on the basis of the mathematics of probability. It's a bogus argument.<br /><br /><b>No they haven;t you are asserting that based upon the need to deny the conclusion. There is no universal consensus in science on that point. Many have tried to refute it many have defended it. Nothing is established as fact.</b><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b>that implies that you think a priori reasoning is based upon observing the world.(?)<br /><br /><br />- It implies that what you think is a priori knowledge is actually learned, whether from observation of the world, or from being taught (by indoctrination, for example)<br /><br /><b>Obviously I don't think that I don't see where you get it. You have to learn what a priori means and some other basic ideas of logic but that's all.If I don't think i;'s observed why would I think it must be learned? You have to know what is before you understand when you are dealing with it. I thought we are toolkit about observations of things in nature. Of course we have to observe logic to see it.</b><br /><br />I think I see why you be the question so much, with that approach to logic it's hard to see how you accept any rules of logic<br /><br />- I accept that which agrees with observation. I reject that which is inconsistent with what I observe.<br /><br /><b>Since God is not given in sense data then it's not a fair test to make empirical observation the litmus test for God.</b><br /><br />11:27 AMJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-32480042230120336782018-08-25T23:13:30.712-07:002018-08-25T23:13:30.712-07:00If you observe it a thousand times how do you know...If you observe it a thousand times how do you know without observation that it wont be different on the 1001 time?<br /><br />- Now you want absolute proof? Sorry, I don't have it. And neither do you. But induction is what human knowledge is based on. It's the best we can do. That's how we arrive at the "laws" of nature. Can we be absolutely certain that f = ma? No. But it holds true every time we try to verify it. You can't hang your hat on a mere possibility if what you think is possible disagrees with all that we have ever observed.<br /><br /><b>sure (except that doesn't rule out some a priori truth) that's what I'm saying, We we resolve the problem of epistemology with assumptions based upon probability. But then when our sense of the regular order is violated we act like it's violatimg an iron clad truth,</b><br /><br />Ut's absurd to say there is no a prori truth it; demonstrable priori<br /><br /><br />- Demonstrable? Then please demonstrate.<br /><br /><b>If P then Q. P :. Q. <br /><br />another: a //= not a</b><br /><br /><b>MetaL</b>Moreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.<br /><br />- No. It is based entirely on observation, as I tried to explain to you. Logic is just the way we observe things to work in our world. Without observation, we would have no concept of logical rules.<br /><br /><br /><b>No can't you observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.. you are observing people obeying an a priori rule. that does not mean you are observing premises mandating conclusions. Logic is based upon self referential rules not upon the workings of the physical wold. Where do you observe the law of excluded middle?</b><br /><br /><br />That would not be a priori that would be be a postoriori.<br /><br />- That's what I've been telling you.<br /><br /><b>No it's not. you are coating two different things, the statement we just made--what I'm saying is a postoriori--is the phrase "you can't reason from the world to God." That refers to the design argument,I never thought design arguments are a prori. But just because they are not does not; mean there are't a prori truths. It's just taht design argument is not one of them, </b><br /><br />There are a priori truths and God is one of them but there's no traction to make people accept it other than logic,that's too arguable. For those who refuse to accept God at any cost they are able to allow themselves to deny logic.<br /><br /><br />- That's your belief. Your a priori assumptions are not justified unless you can show that it's true. And they form the basis of your arguments. It's not logic that I reject<br /><br /><b>I can show it's true but a good logician will find a loop hole and argue with it. It is true if you accept my logic 101 stuff. But you don't have to be much of a logician to find loop holes in my version of formal logical argument.</b><br /><br /><br /> - it's your unjustified a priori assumptions.<br /><br /><b>They are only unjustified because you don't want to accept the truth of the conclusions they mandate. On the other hand I agree that logic has to have empirical referents to work on, not because there are no purely a priori truths but because at the end of the day all logic can do is help us get our sentences in order.</b><br /><br /><b>That is bull shit we don't know that that; just begging the question.Fine tuning shows us it's extremely improbable, what I agree to is that there is no absolute proof One can always rationalize rejection of the facts.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50872339431594037012018-08-25T11:27:35.489-07:002018-08-25T11:27:35.489-07:00If you observe it a thousand times how do you know...<i> If you observe it a thousand times how do you know without observation that it wont be different on the 1001 time?</i><br />- Now you want absolute proof? Sorry, I don't have it. And neither do you. But induction is what human knowledge is based on. It's the best we can do. That's how we arrive at the "laws" of nature. Can we be absolutely certain that f = ma? No. But it holds true every time we try to verify it. You can't hang your hat on a mere possibility if what you think is possible disagrees with all that we have ever observed.<br /><br /><i>Ut's absurd to say there is no a prori truth it; demonstrable priori.</i><br />- Demonstrable? Then please demonstrate.<br /><br /><i> Moreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.</i><br />- No. It is based entirely on observation, as I tried to explain to you. Logic is just the way we observe things to work in our world. Without observation, we would have no concept of logical rules.<br /><br /><i>That would not be a priori that would be be a postoriori.</i><br />- That's what I've been telling you.<br /><br /><i>There are a priori truths and God is one of them but there's no traction to make people accept it other than logic,that's too arguable. For thsoe who refuse to accept God at any cost they are able to allow themselves to deny logic.</i><br />- That's your belief. Your a priori assumptions are not justified unless you can show that it's true. And they form the basis of your arguments. It's not logic that I reject - it's your unjustified a priori assumptions.<br /><br /><i>That is bull shit we don't know that that; just begging the question.Fine tuning shows us it's extremely improbable, what I agree to is that there is no absolute proof One can always rationalize rejection of the facts.</i><br />- I rationalize my beliefs based on what is observed in the world. You rationalize yours based on nothing that has ever been observed. And scientists have refuted that fine-tuning argument again and again. <a href="https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-fine-tuning-fallacy.html" rel="nofollow">I myself have refuted it</a> strictly on the basis of the mathematics of probability. It's a bogus argument.<br /><br /><i>that implies that you think a priori reasoning is based upon observing the world.(?)</i><br />- It implies that what you <b>think</b> is a priori knowledge is actually learned, whether from observation of the world, or from being taught (by indoctrination, for example).<br /><br /><i>I think I see why you be the question so much, with that approach to logic it's hard to see how you accept any rules of logic</i><br />- I accept that which agrees with observation. I reject that which is inconsistent with what I observe.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30397187743762710332018-08-25T08:16:32.207-07:002018-08-25T08:16:32.207-07:00Meta
are you thinking that there is some a priori ...<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b><br />are you thinking that there is some a priori logical reason why God can't be logically construed from the nature of the world?<br /><br /><b>Blogger im-skeptical said...</b><br />- Not in the least. On the contrary, what I'm saying is that ANY logical conclusion is the inevitable consequence of the premises that lead to it - and the truth of premises must be based on what we observe in the world. And there is no truly a priori premise. Those things that we regard as intuitive truths are really learned from our experience in the world.<br /><br /><b>Meta</b><br />So you think a is non a is purely a matter of observation? If you observe it a thousand times how do you know without observation that it wont be different on the 1001 time?<br /><br />Ut's absurd to say there is no a prori truth it; demonstrable priori. Moreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.<br /><br /><br />There is no empirical basis for belief in God. As you said, "you can't reason from the world to God." <br /><br /><b>That would not be a priori that would be be a postoriori. There are a priori truths and God is one of them but there's no traction to make people accept it other than logic,that's too arguable. For thsoe who refuse to accept God at any cost they are able to allow themselves to deny logic.</b><br /><br /><br />I agree. It's because the observable information we have does not include God. If people want to make an argument based on design, for example, their argument must include a premise (usually unstated) that only God could create the world as we see it, and that premise is based on an a priori belief that has no empirical justification. We know from scientific investigation that unintelligent nature is quite capable of producing the world as we see it. We even have a pretty good understanding of how that happens.<br /><br /><br /><b>That is bull shit we don't know that that; just begging the question.Fine tuning shows us it's extremely improbable, what I agree to is that there is no absolute proof One can always rationalize rejection of the facts.</b><br /><br />Any a priori beliefs we have should be examined carefully to see where they come from, and whether they are really justified.<br /><br /><b>I am sorry I don't mean to insult you but that implies that you think a priori reasoning is based upon observing the world.(?)</b><br /><br /><br /> It could be the case that they are based on observation, even if we aren't aware of it. Such is the case with the rules of logic, for example. But other beliefs that we regard as a priori may really be just something we have been told, and that we have believed since before we had any ability to reason - something that we can't actually justify.<br /><br /><br /><b>I think I see why you be the question so much, with that approach to logic it's hard to see how you accept any rules of logic</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com