atheist nemises was just joking

[bigthinker]

You are defining what are "reasonable arguments based on factual, objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence" based on your paradigm. You appear to believe that science, and science alone, is the only way to obtain knowledge.

That is not something I believe. What other ways are there to obtain real, factual knowledge?

To a theist, what you're saying is equivalent to saying, "I don't believe there's such a thing as air pressure. Prove to me that air pressure exists-- but the only tool you can use is this ruler.

No, your analogy is completely incorrect. First of all, the method used to determine anything, including the existence of air pressure, is entirely dependent upon the definition of the claim. I doubt air pressure could be defined in such a way as to make a ruler make any sort of logical sense as a standard of measurement.
A barometer would be the obvious device considering the definition of "air pressure".
Also, you since you probably aren't aware of my entire position, I am not the kind of atheist that thinks God does not exist at all. Rather, my position is that the nature of the existence of God, as described and testified to by those who believe in God is that God is conceptual and exists in the minds of those who believe in him in the same way that say love and justice are conceptual and exist in the mind. So the only reason I would require evidence of the existence of God outside of the mind is if believers claim that God exists outside of the mind.

If you can't measure air pressure using this ruler, then you are making assertions without any evidence that fits my rules of what is acceptable."

Also keep in mind that I am not the one limiting the believer's options to any particular device. If you believe in God, YOU tell me how you want to demonstrate that your God exists outside of your mind and then proceed. I would never ask you to demonstrate that air pressure exists and limit you to using a device unrelated to the nature of your claim to make your demonstration. So you have completely misconstrued the entire situation.

Inside a box called "scientism," you can't see anything outside that box. But we can't drag God into the box for you. God won't fit in there.

The "box" is reality. And I agree, most likely the God that exists in your mind probably won't fit inside the box of reality.

At any rate, coming over to Metacrock's forum to hurl more insults at him is extremely bad manners.

It would be if that was my intention but its not. I don't need to resort to insults the way Metacrock does.

Unless you can maintain a discourse that respects the fact that other people can, quite rationally, have different viewpoints than yours, there's no point in hanging around here.

This is not a problem for me. I welcome different viewpoints and I welcome challenges and respectful discourse. I do not respect personal insults nor do I respect those who resort to them in lieu of addressing the points like an adult.

If you're so sure theists are all idiots anyway,

I'm not certain of that at all. In fact I know many intelligent theists, I just think they're unable to demonstrate that their beliefs are correct.

why should you waste your time with us?

Because I became aware of the Metacrock's disparaging post about me and I saw the responses. Rather than let (honest) ignorance go unchecked I felt compelled to register and weigh in.

The members here-- theists and atheists alike-- disagree with you, and would prefer to continue respectful discourse.

Disagree with me on what point, the desire to have respectful discourse?

Please either join in respectfully, or find another group to talk to.

You seem to miss understand me, I will not respond in kind to insults or personal attacks. Its not my style and frankly my position is solid enough that I don't need them.

Cheers.

[bigthinker]

"Independently Verifiable" what is he, a logical positivist? That philosophy's has been dead for more that 60 years. " Also who the hell calls themselves big thinker.

I do.
What does "that philosophy's been dead for more tha(n) 60 years" mean?

[bigthinker]

"Independently Verifiable" what is he, a logical positivist? That philosophy's has been dead for more that 60 years. " Also who the hell calls themselves big thinker.

no kidding. we have a guy called "Tiny thinker" here he's one of the most brilliant people I know. this "big thinker" is one of the dumbest. So there must be an inverse proportion thing going with screen names.

Like my old friend "expert genius master mind" said...

This is the kind of personal attack/insult that Metacrock relies on instead of addressing the points. I don't expect him to agree with me, in fact I expect him not to. But I also expect and would prefer him to respond to the points, address them and explain why he thinks I'm wrong instead of taking the cheap shortcut and calling me "dumb". Am I being unreasonable?

[bigthinker]

I can't believe baffoun boy actually came over here.

Another personal attack/insult.

[mdsimpson92]

"Independently Verifiable" what is he, a logical positivist? That philosophy's has been dead for more that 60 years. " Also who the hell calls themselves big thinker.

I do.
What does "that philosophy's been dead for more tha(n) 60 years" mean?

Probably should explain myself then. In the early 20th century, one of the dominant forms of philosophy was called logical positivism (also called logical empiricism in the US). One of the key principles behind it is that any statement that is not verifiable is meaningless, this would remove topics such as metaphysics from the field of discussion. This philosophy was abandoned completely by the 70's (though it was being abandonded in the 50's and 60's so I guess my math was a bit off it was just begining to be abandoned 60 years ago apologies.) One of the problems was that the statement itself was self-refuting due to the fact that the statement cannot in of itself be verified. Most philosopher (including my own professors) believe it to be (to quote John Passmore) "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." Sorry if the explanation of logical positivism was unecessary or if I have misinterpeted your statements.

[bigthinker]

"Independently Verifiable" what is he, a logical positivist? That philosophy's has been dead for more that 60 years. " Also who the hell calls themselves big thinker.

I do.
What does "that philosophy's been dead for more tha(n) 60 years" mean?

Probably should explain myself then. In the early 20th century, one of the dominant forms of philosophy was called logical positivism (also called logical empiricism in the US). One of the key principles behind it is that any statement that is not verifiable is meaningless, this would remove topics such as metaphysics from the field of discussion.

I think often the use of "meaning" in this context is misinterpreted. In this context the word is not being used to denote intent, purpose, value etc but rather that an unverifiable statement is undefined, vague or ambiguous indistinct.
Such statements often have personal value (meaning) but are in fact meaningless (without meaning, indistinct etc). Verification is the process of defining and giving meaning to the statement.

This philosophy was abandoned completely by the 70's (though it was being abandonded in the 50's and 60's so I guess my math was a bit off it was just begining to be abandoned 60 years ago apologies.)

Perhaps it is dead as a philosophy but it remains true in the practical sense.

One of the problems was that the statement itself was self-refuting due to the fact that the statement cannot in of itself be verified.

The statement is self evident due to the state and condition of reality. An unverified statement IS without meaning (is undefined, indistinct, vague etc).

Most philosopher (including my own professors) believe it to be (to quote John Passmore) "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." Sorry if the explanation of logical positivism was unecessary or if I have misinterpeted your statements.

Is the statement "logical positivism is dead" a verifiable statement? If logical positivism IS dead, then the statement is meaningless, which of course agrees with logical positivism.
This is the other side of the irrefutable paradoxical nature of the verification process.

Also, you didn't explain what you mean by "dead". Do you mean no longer thought of as valid? No longer correct?

[mdsimpson92]

Also, you didn't explain what you mean by "dead". Do you mean no longer thought of as valid? No longer correct?

Essentially the former. It has been discarded by general philosophy. Which is probably why metaphysics has made a large comeback (that and the writings of Saul Kripke, most notably Naming and Necessity).

Verification is the process of defining and giving meaning to the statement.

I would actually disagree with that. Verification (from what I found in the dictionary, though you may have a different one) is "to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of." None of the one that I have check say that it is to actually give meaning to the statement, but to be able to prove if the statement is correct. The meaning behind the statement is already there. In the case of logical positivism it says statements that cannot be empirically verified (that is why it is also called logical empiricism) are meaningless, and that is why it is self-refuting because the statement does not live up to its own standards in that it cannot be empirically verified.

[Metacrock]

In answering one who might say there is only scientific knowledge.


"Real factual Knowledge?" So what's a fact? I am sitting in front of something we call a "desk." I'm really here, I'm really sitting in front of a desk. That is a fact, ergo it is knowledge. I know I'm doing, knowledge is anything I know. I didn not obtain this "real factual knowledge" through scinece.

How do you know scinece knowledge is real? If you can question the non scientific empiricism knowledge by epistemic wonderment (how do you know you exist ect ect) why can't you question scientific knowledge that way?

The great Genius of the Legion of Super Heroes is Braniac 5 of the planet Calou. That is a fact. Now it's also a fact that the LSH and braniac 5 and Clous are function, but that doesn't mean that my knowledge of their membership is not factual.

you are asserting that the only "facts" worthy of the appellation are those gleaned by science. As long as you assert that you are selective excluding knowledge that doesn' t fit your paradigm and thus rendering all possible knowledge subject to your paradigm that's what we call "ideology."

There are facts that are not from science, there are real things that are not given in scinece necessarily (I exist, I am here). These things I know thus they are facts thus all facts are not from scinece:

ergo scinece cannot be the only form of knowledge.

when you say it is you are merely creating a truth regime.

[mdsimpson92]

In answering one who might say there is only scientific knowledge.


"Real factual Knowledge?" So what's a fact? I am sitting in front of something we call a "desk." I'm really here, I'm really sitting in front of a desk. That is a fact, ergo it is knowledge. I know I'm doing, knowledge is anything I know. I didn not obtain this "real factual knowledge" through scinece.

How do you know scinece knowledge is real? If you can question the non scientific empiricism knowledge by epistemic wonderment (how do you know you exist ect ect) why can't you question scientific knowledge that way?

The great Genius of the Legion of Super Heroes is Braniac 5 of the planet Calou. That is a fact. Now it's also a fact that the LSH and braniac 5 and Clous are function, but that doesn't mean that my knowledge of their membership is not factual.

you are asserting that the only "facts" worthy of the appellation are those gleaned by science. As long as you assert that you are selective excluding knowledge that doesn' t fit your paradigm and thus rendering all possible knowledge subject to your paradigm that's what we call "ideology."

There are facts that are not from science, there are real things that are not given in scinece necessarily (I exist, I am here). These things I know thus they are facts thus all facts are not from scinece:

ergo scinece cannot be the only form of knowledge.

when you say it is you are merely creating a truth regime.

Technically we can't even prove that (brains in vats ) Anther example would be in normative knowledge such as mathmatics and ethics. If what you (big thinker) say is true, then technically both mathmatics and ethics are meaningless (we actually just discussed this in ethics class, were on metaethics). (unless i am misinterpreting waht you are saying in which case i apologize again.)

[Metacrock]

BT:No, your analogy is completely incorrect. First of all, the method used to determine anything, including the existence of air pressure, is entirely dependent upon the definition of the claim. I doubt air pressure could be defined in such a way as to make a ruler make any sort of logical sense as a standard of measurement.

This is typical. The analogy is brilliant. It shows the idea of using the wrong tool for a job that has to be done the right tool, the one in question is not it. To point out the the tool is wrong merely reiterates the point of the analogy and demonstrates that you don't understand it.

God is no able to be found by scinece, because he's the basis of all the stuff that science investigates. he's not part of the things that scinece can tell us about, he's the reaosn they exist. So we find him with scinece, just like you can't find air pressure with a ruler.

This speaks volumes about your acuity, rather lack thereof.

A barometer would be the obvious device considering the definition of "air pressure".

Phenomenology is like the barometer. it's the more proper tool for God finding, not scinece. Science is the ruler. see you need to think about the relationships to the argument. That's how one understands analogies.

Also, you since you probably aren't aware of my entire position, I am not the kind of atheist that thinks God does not exist at all.

that's the only kind there is.

Rather, my position is that the nature of the existence of God, as described and testified to by those who believe in God is that God is conceptual and exists in the minds of those who believe in him in the same way that say love and justice are conceptual and exist in the mind. So the only reason I would require evidence of the existence of God outside of the mind is if believers claim that God exists outside of the mind.

To you that is the same as saying "unreal" isn't it? Unless you are a Platonist. are you a Platonist?