Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Mark Hamill · 16-05-2019 08:30AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Impartial onlooker? What on earth is that?

Worldviews (which informs how one looks on) are like assholes..

It's clear what it is, someone who is uninformed, and has no opinion either way, about your and robindch's beliefs.
So, instead of pretending not to understand that, would you like to actually respond to it?

Mark Hamill · 16-05-2019 08:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yeah, the one that is ducked and dived around, as ever.

Well, when you stop ducking and diving then you can stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been debunked repeatedly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The empiricist's special sauce will do for the purposes of onwards discussion.

Actually no, it won't do. That is a strawman and we will go no further until you abandon it. My argument equally applies to a christian and hinduist presenting their claims to an impartial onlooker. This is not about empiricisim vs non-empiricism, it's about two people equally confident in their conflicting arguments.
(In my head, I actually approach these scenarios, not form the point of view of an empirical atheist questioning a theist, but from the point of view of an uninformed de-facto agnostic talking to an atheist and a theist. That's how I arrive at my questions.)

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I tell? Or how does the non-impartial onlooker tell?

You clearly quoted "How do you tell?" (after separately quoting and responding to "how does an onlooker tell"), so which do you think I'm asking here: How do you tell or how does someone else tell? :rolleyes:.
We are going to get nowhere if this is the level you are dragging the debate to.

robindch · 16-05-2019 10:44AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way: if God exists and I know it, a consequence would be that I know 'empiricists' claims about the only ways we can know are wrong from the get go.

Assuming your conclusion in order to demonstrate your conclusion might make for good rhetoric, but it also makes for lousy logic.

The same rhetoric shows that the flying spaghetti monster is deity as plausible as yours - this perhaps isn't your intention, though it's a reasonable conclusion.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2019 08:16PM

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way: if God exists and I know it, a consequence would be that I know 'empiricists' claims about the only ways we can know are wrong from the get go.

Assuming your conclusion in order to demonstrate your conclusion might make for good rhetoric, but it also makes for lousy logic.

I'm not demonstrating anything. If/then.

What it would mean, in practice that I can expect to encounter a fatal flaw in say, the empiricist view. That it rests on an assumption that can't be demonstrated.

Follow the rabbit down the hole and it would be found (if my IF is the case) that a rabbit is being pulled from the empiricists hat.

As it is, things only ever rise to the level of bald faith claims from empiricists here: 'its true, sure, everyone knows it.

Its about as likely true as the flying spagetti monster
Until demonstrated otherwise.

The same rhetoric shows that the flying spaghetti monster is deity as plausible as yours - this perhaps isn't your intention, though it's a reasonable conclusion.

Empricists, welcome to the club!

Self-evidency seems to be your ace card. What a crock..

antiskeptic · 16-05-2019 08:31PM

Mark Hamill wrote:

Well, when you stop ducking and diving then you can stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been debunked repeatedly.

Another 00's internet meme: the 'its been debunked" self-certification.

And the impartial onlooker who decided same was..

The A&A forum members?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The empiricist's special sauce will do for the purposes of onwards discussion.

Actually no, it won't do. That is a strawman and we will go no further until you abandon it.

It looks like you don't know what a 'strawman' is, although your arguments are peppered with the word.

An empiricists special sauce is the belief in its fundamental claim. And then going on to hold it true/self evident / possessing utility/ etc.

But there is no proof for it.
We are empiricall wired and can obtain knowledge of the empirical world. Thats true. Thats all that true.

If you want to simply assume empiricism is 'true' then we can indeed go no further. Since we would simply have two claims, neither of which can be proven.

My argument equally applies to a christian and hinduist presenting their claims to an impartial onlooker. This is not about empiricisim vs non-empiricism, it's about two people equally confident in their conflicting arguments.
(In my head, I actually approach these scenarios, not form the point of view of an empirical atheist questioning a theist, but from the point of view of an uninformed de-facto agnostic talking to an atheist and a theist. That's how I arrive at my questions.)

1. You have to have a basis to self exclude (which is convenient for you)

2. I'm afraid I don't have faith in your self declaration on impartiality. And I don't think there's a way to demonstrate it either.

The idea that anyone is impartial (ie; doesnt view through a worldview lens is without merit. Heck, you leak empiricist through every pore on here. For you its all about empirical evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I tell? Or how does the non-impartial onlooker tell?

You clearly quoted "How do you tell?" (after separately quoting and responding to "how does an onlooker tell"), so which do you think I'm asking here: How do you tell or how does someone else tell? :rolleyes:.
We are going to get nowhere if this is the level you are dragging the debate to.[/quote][/quote]

I'm on a phone so amn't trawling back.

The question is valid (how do I know I know (when another faith head says he knows his competing view is true ..vs how does the impartial onlooker know between the two claims (assuming one is true)

As I said. I don't hold there is such a thing. And I don't know how anyone could begin to demonstrate there is such a thing or that such a thing is even possible.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2019 08:36PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Impartial onlooker? What on earth is that?

Worldviews (which informs how one looks on) are like assholes..

It's clear what it is, someone who is uninformed, and has no opinion either way, about your and robindch's beliefs.
So, instead of pretending not to understand that, would you like to actually respond to it?

So you mean a 3 year old? They are uniformed but hardly going to make head or tale of us.

The uniformed person might not have a degree in philosophy but they will appreciate the empirical world. Something like that?

Question, has this impartial person any experience of the spiritual world?

If not, they are not exactly impartial, are they?

Your not assuming your position again? The empiricism is this neutral agent.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2019 10:05PM

smacl wrote: »

Your logic is faulty as your argument is clearly based on a false predicate. You don't know that god exists, you believe it but there is no objective evidence to support that belief.

Assuming you mean the false predicate to be 'AND I know it' ( I should have capped the 'and' to indicate part of a logic sequence)? IF so;

Before the false predicate there was something else. An 'IF God exists..'

The 'false' predicate (concerning me knowing) rests on the status of the former (IF he exists)

Unless your saying God cannot exist (good luck with that. Your slipping out 'its possible', then diving immediately into the foxhole of groundless probabilities and spagetti monsters doesn't impact on the progression of the logic).

IF he does THEN..

You cannot say 'I don't know' (because you can't know that God doesn't exist). You can, however? say you don't believe I know, (because you don't believe God exists for the reasons you don't)

Obviously too, if God exists I can have objective evidence of it. It only takes him to decide to evidence himself. Your wrong on that score too.

I understand that as someone invested in "empirically demonstrable = the ONLY way to objective", your adhering limpet-like to the idea.

But this is God we'd be talking of. The Creator (if he exists) of all. Including the objectivity we obtain due to our (his) wiring

I can know. Logic.

I can know objectively

All that has to happen is he exists.

You seem to be working from the view that the more candidates standing for election, the reduction in the probability of any one candidate being elected. In bald speak this is true.

However, if one candidate's starting position sees him with a reasonable expectation of obtaining 80% of the vote, the entry into the fray of a candidate from the Monster Raving Flying Teapot party will affect the probability of the formers victory not one jot.

You seem to be trying to promote the possibility of your belief holding true based on the fact that it is a popular belief, which is not only an argumentum ad populum fallacy as already pointed out, but contradicts your previous criticism of human rights standards as being no more than the mood of the people.

I'm not trying to make a majority argument ( but will remind you when you do (remember the topic of this thread)

My point was merely that 10,000 competing gods / philosophies becoming 20,000 doesn't alter the probability of any one god/philosophy being true (in the event one is actually true]

Bannasidhe · 16-05-2019 10:20PM

Sooo... any news on Israel Falou?

Does he still have a job?
Does he need a new job?
Is he actually the victim of internalised homophobia and is protesting too much?

Cabaal · 17-05-2019 08:56AM

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/israel-folau-sacked-by-rugby-australia-over-homophobic-post-1.3895449

Wallabies full-back Israel Folau has been sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic social media posts.

Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle told a press conference: “We are here to announce that Wallabies and Waratahs player Israel Folau has today been issued a sanction directing termination of his playing contract for his high-level breach of the professional players’ code of conduct.

“The three-member panel of John West QC chair, Kate Eastman and John Boultbee, provided its final written decision today in relation to the code of conduct hearing over Folau’s social media post on April 10, 2019.

“While Rugby Australia accepts the panel’s decision directing termination of Israel Folau’s contract for his high-level breach of the code of conduct, we want to stress that this outcome is a painful situation for the game.

“Rugby Australia did not choose to be in the situation, but Rugby Australia’s position remains that Israel, through his actions, left us with no choice but to pursue the course of action resulting in today’s outcome.

“This has been an extremely challenging period for rugby. This issue has created an unwanted distraction in an important year for the sport and for the Wallabies team.

“But our clear message for all rugby fans today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork.”

Castle said she had been in touch with players to “make it clear that Rugby Australia fully supports their right to their own beliefs, and nothing that has happened changes that.

“But when we’re talking about inclusiveness in our game, we’re talking abut respecting differences as well. When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it.

“People need to feel safe and welcomed in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality.

“Israel is a great rugby player and we are disappointed and saddened by the fact that he will not see out his four-year contract and commitment to the Wallabies and also with the Waratahs.”

The right decision, he knew the rules and he broke them.
He also had a previous chance and he still broke the rules again.

Mark Hamill · 17-05-2019 09:35AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It looks like you don't know what a 'strawman' is, although your arguments are peppered with the word.

A strawman is when someone takes someone elses argument they have no answer to, changes it to something they feel they can argue against better and ignores what was actually said. Which is what you are doing. My argument is not empiricism vs non-empiricism. The nature of the special-sauces is irrelevant, just that they are contradictory.

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. You have to have a basis to self exclude (which is convenient for you)

2. I'm afraid I don't have faith in your self declaration on impartiality. And I don't think there's a way to demonstrate it either.

The idea that anyone is impartial (ie; doesnt view through a worldview lens is without merit. Heck, you leak empiricist through every pore on here. For you its all about empirical evidence.

I'm on a phone so amn't trawling back.

The question is valid (how do I know I know (when another faith head says he knows his competing view is true ..vs how does the impartial onlooker know between the two claims (assuming one is true)

As I said. I don't hold there is such a thing. And I don't know how anyone could begin to demonstrate there is such a thing or that such a thing is even possible.

I am not claiming to be the impartial onlooker. If you want to assume the impartial onlooker is some ideal abstract, then fine, but just answer my damn questions:
1) How does someone, with no worldview, tell which of two contradictory (but equally confident) people's proposed worldviews are true?
2) How does either of those people tell?

robindch · 17-05-2019 11:37AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not demonstrating anything.

Indeed.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2019 01:56PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

It looks like you don't know what a 'strawman' is, although your arguments are peppered with the word.

A strawman is when someone takes someone elses argument they have no answer to, changes it to something they feel they can argue against better and ignores what was actually said. Which is what you are doing. My argument is not empiricism vs non-empiricism. The nature of the special-sauces is irrelevant, just that they are contradictory.

Okay. Since the nature of the special sauces is irrelevant, have you any objection to a particular theist view and the empiricist view being the two sauces in question?

If you have an objection what is it?

I am not strawmanning here, I'm merely establishing the bonafides of your position before progressing

I am not claiming to be the impartial onlooker.

Good. By putting you alongside me as a purveyor of special sauces we can examine the problem together. Since we both face this impartial onlooker

If you want to assume the impartial onlooker is some ideal abstract, then fine, but just answer my damn questions:

This is where you strawman. Since we're in this together now, each with special sauce, what might we presume of the imp.on?

To be impartial they have to have a balanced view? Isn't that what impartial is? Not weighted in one direction.

1) How does someone, with no worldview, tell which of two contradictory (but equally confident) people's proposed worldviews are true?

If they've had neither empirical experience nor spiritual experience then I can't say. Too little informtion on this imp.on. At the moment they are a blob, an unknown.

You have to begin to describe this imp.on. They've no training either in philosophy or theism. What else.

I think what you want is to pick a man in the street, who has no philosophy training and no theology training?

Does he go to church or not, for example?

Mark Hamill · 17-05-2019 07:47PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am not strawmanning here, I'm merely establishing the bonafides of your position before progressing

You are strawmanning and deflecting because you think I will give up. The nature of the special sauces is irrelevent. You can consider them in your head anyway you like, but they don't need to be brought up in the discussion (half of my point is specifically that it doesn't matter, my question works for any mix of sauces).

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is where you strawman. Since we're in this together now, each with special sauce, what might we presume of the imp.on?

To be impartial they have to have a balanced view? Isn't that what impartial is? Not weighted in one direction.

And now, instead of just answering my questions, you are trying to claim that I'm strawmanning my own scenario. :rolleyes:
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

antiskeptic wrote: »

If they've had neither empirical experience nor spiritual experience then I can't say. Too little informtion on this imp.on. At the moment they are a blob, an unknown.

They have every explanation each of the two people can give, but no special sauce that either person claims to have.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2019 10:35PM

Mark Hamill wrote:

You are strawmanning and deflecting because you think I will give up. The nature of the special sauces is irrelevent. You can consider them in your head anyway you like, but they don't need to be brought up in the discussion (half of my point is specifically that it doesn't matter, my question works for any mix of sauces).

That's fine by me - any mix of sauces, including your own is a good way to go. I'm only pressing to keep things tight as we go.

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS/

It's an internet discussion forum, not face to face where things can be clarified in a moment.

I need to approach the question carefully. For instance above, where, by seeing you include your sauce in with all possible sauces, I can see that at least one element of "agenda setting" / " presumption of own position true " might not be your approach.

Your starting on a level playing field. Which is good - since that is how we ought to start.

They have every explanation each of the two people can give, but no special sauce that either person claims to have.

Sounds good at first sight. But in practice folk don't need to have been trained in, for example, the philosophy of empiricism in order to be empiricists. Nor do they have to have a degree in theology to be theists.

We live in a world that awash with both empiricist and theist under and overtones. Whether the good or bad side of either isn't the point, the point is that you surely can't believe anyone out there hasn't some kind of worldview based on their constant exposure to the world around us.

I can't say such an impartial individual can't exist. But in order to exist they would have to not be exposed to empiricist or theist under/overtones.

Would such a person have any inkling about what we were talking about. No sense of the empirical world? No sense of the spiritual world?

Because if exposed to both, they probably have view one way or the other.

There is no "half way house"/" impartial " between empiricist and Christian beliefs.

(You might see noe why it was important to specify these two conflicting sauces? Ot highlight the problem of impartial)

God (in an IF/THEN statement) is somewhat defined in relation to what we know. An impartial onlooker has been described with no definition whatsoever. You can't just say 'IF an impartial onlooker THEN what would they make of the sauces?" You might as well say 'IF blob THEN...

Whats 'blob'

They have no recognisable features.

Impartial? Impossible?

Mark Hamill · 18-05-2019 02:03AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sounds good at first sight. But in practice blah blah waffle deflection nonsense.

This is just gibberish nonsense. People can be impartial to conflicting ideas in subjects they have never encountered before. It's clear why you wont answer my clear simple questions, you know they prove your whole argument to be full of crap. Enough of the BS pretence at semantics, take it as hypothetical and just answer the questions:
1) How does someone, with no worldview, tell which of two contradictory (but equally confident) people's proposed worldviews are true?
2) How does either of those people tell?

antiskeptic · 18-05-2019 09:07AM

This isn't which brand of coffee is preferred, this is existential.

Your view, as life-from-non-life adherent, might hold that someone can not have thought about the subject until the day you and me approach them for their judgment.

I, on the the other hand, have a completely different starting position. People are born sinners and in opposition to God. They are antagonistic towards him by nature.
Impartial isn't possible.

You are either for him (saved) or against him (lost).

-

You ought know the flavour of my sauce position yet you insist people are capable of impartiality on this issue.

Which is merely (if accidently) imposing your sauces flavour on to the exercise.

The sauciers hand is rocking the cradle.

Which is why I included your sauce in this experiment. It is very relevant which sauces are under the microscope afterall.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2019 09:09AM

Now your turn.

1. Can the Christian God exist? Yes? No?

(I would remind you of the nature of science: whatever the indications of the evidence, the conclusion isn't fixed but is subject to review should the evidence scene change in future.)

robindch · 18-05-2019 09:44AM

Mod:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's clear why you wont answer my clear simple questions, you know they prove your whole argument to be full of crap. Enough of the BS pretence at semantics, [...]

It's also possible that antiskeptic genuinely believes, or tries to believe, whatever ideas might be buried within the intractable prose which he/she posts from time to time. In such a case, it might be better to step back instead of trying to continue to pin him/her down when he's/she's clearly unwilling or unable to be pinned down to an actual identifiable position.

No need for using or implying foul language either.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Impartial isn't possible.

Neither, it seems, is reasonable discussion at this time. In line with the recent charter updates, your friendly A+A mods might decide to intervene where a reasonable discussion isn't taking place with what we hope might be some helpful suggestions to both sides. On your side, I suggest that you read your posts before replying and seeing whether they could include, for example, an identifiable meaning which treads within the same general neighbourhood where resides the poster you are replying to. So far, your gnomic, Deepak-like prose avoids this.

However, you will agree that we each contain within ourselves the seeds of our own redemption and - being hopeful sorts - your friendly mods trust that the future might see you engaging in, you know, actual discussion.

santana75 · 18-05-2019 09:47AM

Personally I'd stand by Israel Falou and his decision to post those quotes from Corinthians, Its not what I would've done personally, but I defend his right to quote publicly from the bible. I mean if he had posted Corinthians 13:4-7 (Paul's verse on Love) then he would've been commended and still have a job to go to. But both verses are biblically equal. To buy into one verse and not another is not truly following the teachings of Jesus. If you look at Jesus and the way he interacted with people he did it with a mix of compassion and hard truth. He embraced people but he would still call them out on their sin. He spent most of his time with sinners and trying to draw them back into a relationship with God. It was in fact Religious people who put him to death and they did it because he called them out on their sin, which was pride, arrogance and self-righteousness. Israel Falou has no job, this is a fact and perhaps a lot of sponsors and teams will not want to have anything to do with him, thats to be expected, its the nature of the world. But ultimately I believe he'll be fine and will do well in life. Jesus said "Wisdom is proven right by the lives of those who follow it". And thats how you can clearly see if someone has made the right decisions in their life by looking at the end product, not just whats happening right now, but in years to come.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2019 09:59AM

robindch wrote:

It's also possible that antiskeptic genuinely believes, or tries to believe, whatever ideas might be buried within the intractable prose which he/she posts from time to time.

Is it so difficult? Mark is happy to subject himself and his sauce to his own experiment. And forces assumptions of his sauce onto it.

Is that the kind of science you applaud?

In such a case, it might be better to step back instead of trying to continue to pin him/her down when he's/she's clearly unwilling or unable to be pinned down to an actual identifiable position.

Identified above in limited prose.

Neither, it seems, is reasonable discussion at this time. In line with the recent charter updates, your friendly A+A mods might decide to intervene where a reasonable discussion isn't taking place with what we hope might be some helpful suggestions to both sides. On your side, I suggest that you read your posts before replying and seeing whether they could include, for example, an identifiable meaning which treads within the same general neighbourhood where resides the poster you are replying to. So far, your gnomic, Deepak-like prose avoids this.

However, you will agree that we each contain within ourselves the seeds of our own redemption and - being hopeful sorts - your friendly mods trust that the future might see you engaging in, you know, actual discussion.

I have erred. I was trying to convey the idea of the problem of impartiality to Mark in roundabout. Hopefully my 2nd to last post will highlight the nub.

Which brings us back to the thread.

One belief system is pronouncing on another belief system (the "inclusive" mood of the times authority vs. Folau)

The former insisting that it leans on something objective. When its really only shoehorning its own beliefs into things. Like Mark in his experiment, that hand rocks the cradle.

robindch · 18-05-2019 10:12AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have erred.

No, you have waffled at great length to almost no effect at all. Were it not ten in the morning, I'd have suggested laying off the Anise.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2019 10:23AM

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have erred.

No, you have waffled at great length to almost no effect at all. Were it not ten in the morning, I'd have suggested laying off the Anise.

Ad hominem
Do-do-dee-do-do
Ad hominem
Do-dee-dee-doo
Ad hominem
Do-do-dee-do-do
Do-do-do
Do-do-do
Do-do-do-dee-dee-do-do-do-do-do

Moderator, heal thyself!

robindch · 18-05-2019 02:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Moderator, heal thyself!

Moderator doing just fine, thank you

Mark Hamill · 20-05-2019 08:47AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

This isn't which brand of coffee is preferred, this is existential.

Your view, as life-from-non-life adherent, might hold that someone can not have thought about the subject until the day you and me approach them for their judgment.

I, on the the other hand, have a completely different starting position. People are born sinners and in opposition to God. They are antagonistic towards him by nature.
Impartial isn't possible.

You are either for him (saved) or against him (lost).

-

You ought know the flavour of my sauce position yet you insist people are capable of impartiality on this issue.

Which is merely (if accidently) imposing your sauces flavour on to the exercise.

The sauciers hand is rocking the cradle.

Which is why I included your sauce in this experiment. It is very relevant which sauces are under the microscope afterall.

More meaningless nonsense.
Take the impartial onlooker as a hypothetical ideal, if that will get you to stop wasting everyones time and just answer the questions.

antiskeptic · 20-05-2019 11:49PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

More meaningless nonsense.
Take the impartial onlooker as a hypothetical ideal, if that will get you to stop wasting everyones time and just answer the questions.

I said:

You ought know the flavour of my sauce position

..which holds that people aren't impartial to the issue of God

yet you insist people are capable of impartiality on this issue.

What part of that do you not understand?

Your hypothetical isn't possible.

-

To assess two positions you need an evaluation system. What would this hypothetical ideal evaluation system be based on? What equipping would they have to properly assess both positions. Like, you get a structural engineer in to evaluate a structure, a lawyer to evaluate a legal position, etc. If you wanted someone to assess a massive structural defect in a new building you might get in a structural engineer and a lawyer.

Hypothetical ideal is an empty term until such time as it is give some legs.

Mark Hamill · 21-05-2019 09:08AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your hypothetical isn't possible.

Which is why I said take it as a hypothetical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To assess two positions you need an evaluation system. What would this hypothetical ideal evaluation system be based on? What equipping would they have to properly assess both positions.

You take how many days and posts to end up asking my initial question back to me? Because what you have written here is what I am asked you in the first place.
If you have some idealised hypothetical impartial onlooker who is presented with two opposing world views from people who are equally confident in their special sauces, how should that onlooker tell which world view and special sauce to accept or believe in? What should their evaluation system look like?

It's all well and good that you believe that your knowledge is god given, but how can anyone else tell if that's true, when there are any number of other people claiming contradictory god given knowledge or claiming contradictory logic or reason or science? How should any onlooker determine what's true, regardless of whether they work off of a theistic, empirical or non-existent perfectly impartial viewpoint?

And, given that there are people equally confident that their contradictory (to your knowledge and/or god) "knowledge" is actually god given and true, how can you be sure which of you is right and which is wrong? You are both presenting equal but opposite claims that can't both be right, even though you are both confident in them, so how do you, antiskeptic, tell if you are actually right?

antiskeptic · 21-05-2019 06:55PM

If I were to ask you, hypothetically, if up were down. And up was up.

Is everything open to a hypothetical?

You take how many days and posts to end up asking my initial question back to me? Because what you have written here is what I am asked you in the first place.
If you have some idealised hypothetical impartial onlooker who is presented with two opposing world views from people who are equally confident in their special sauces, how should that onlooker tell which world view and special sauce to accept or believe in? What should their evaluation system look like?

I've no idea when it comes to the worldviews under discussion (Christianity and Empiricism). You say 'hypothetical' as if by saying it you've waved a magic wand. I simply have no idea how someone with no access to the bones of a worldview can assess that worldview.

It's all well and good that you believe that your knowledge is god given

Its a conclusion I've come to based on the evidence available to me. God is not only the ultimate reality and truth, but he is the way to the truth. Much like you conclude truth about reality is to be obtained by empiricism. The evidence at your disposal leads you to that conclusion.

(Don't ask me what my evidence is, by the way. You are occupying the space of a worldview awaiting the pronounciation of an impartial other. Its not your job to evaluate my argument regarding what's evidence when. You'd only insert your worldviews T&C's)

but how can anyone else tell if that's true, when there are any number of other people claiming contradictory god given knowledge or claiming contradictory logic or reason or science?

You're in the same boat. Under investigation by another you've yet to create (how I don't know). Stay in the boat and stop hopping into the role of impartial onlooker.

How should any onlooker determine what's true, regardless of whether they work off of a theistic, empirical or non-existent perfectly impartial viewpoint?

They assess according to this hypothetical assessment method you have in mind. If you have nothing to say about their method then I can't say how they would do it.

Certainly, if they are coming at it from a theistic pov (ie: they believe in God), they won't be impartial. Their assessment of empiricism will be like mine.

And, given that there are people equally confident that their contradictory (to your knowledge and/or god) "knowledge" is actually god given and true, how can you be sure which of you is right and which is wrong?

How can I be sure or how can the impartial observer be sure? You've excluded yourself again btw. Include yourself and answer your own question.

You will find it goes something like this "'It's satisfactory to me. All the evidence I have at my disposal leads me to conclude that this is the truth (or the only way to the truth). I belief I'm correct in my assessment"

are both presenting equal but opposite claims that can't both be right, even though you are both confident in them, so how do you, antiskeptic, tell if you are actually right?

As above. By the same means as the other person in the boat - you. I assess the evidence at my disposal and come to the conclusion I come to. That others don't agree (because they have different evidence to base their decision on) is not my problem.

Mark Hamill · 21-05-2019 08:09PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I simply have no idea how someone with no access to the bones of a worldview can assess that worldview.

They don't have worldview, but they are open to one. The hypothetical onlooker will listen to any argument you make. Can't you think of how you can convince them in such a way that is more convincing than any other theist, atheist or empiricist? Or do all of your arguments require starting with the worldview that your god exists?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're in the same boat. Under investigation by another you've to create, how I don't know. Stay in the boat and stop hopping into the role of impartial onlooker.

I know how I would do it, I'm asking you how would you do it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

They assess according to this hypothetical assessment method you have in mind. If you have nothing to say about their method then I can't say how they would do it.

Certainly, if they are coming at it from a theistic pov (ie: they believe in God), they won't be impartial. Their assessment of empiricism will be like mine.

So how do you convince them to come at from your pov?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its satisactory to me. All the evidence I have at my disposal leads me to believe what I believe is true.

But there are other people equally satisfied with their "knowledge" and their evidence. Do you not question how you can be so sure you are right and they are wrong?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Making it not a belief but a fact

That is not how facts work.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As above. The same way as the other person in the boat - you.

I imagine I have a fundamentally different way for telling I am right, fully accounting for your contradictory confidence, than you do. Why don't you go ahead and explain your way?

antiskeptic · 21-05-2019 08:58PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They don't have worldview, but they are open to one. The hypothetical onlooker will listen to any argument you make. Can't you think of how you can convince them in such a way that is more convincing than any other theist, atheist or empiricist? Or do all of your arguments require starting with the worldview that your god exists?

Without empirical experience I doubt your onlooker would have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Have they got empirical experience?

But there are other people equally satisfied with their "knowledge" and their evidence. Do you not question how you can be so sure you are right and they are wrong?

Not in the least.

a) I've met God. You could begin to imagine, from say, the size of the universe, that something like that would be a cosmic scale event. Someone attempting a proof of empiricism would be throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it, in comparison.

b) I understand why they think as they do - the bible gives a pretty good manual as to how the world works. And when I look out at the world, I see it works uncannily precisely as the manual says it will. Take Ecclesiastes "there's nothing new under the sun". Whilst folk like yourself have this ever onwards and upwards point of view. Mankind developing and progressing. "We've moved on(wards and upwards)"

When I look at the world I see the same old same old. Nothing different in the least. The outer dress changes in the world, but people operate the same way as they've always done.

When I look at the various theistic gods around the world, one after the other they share the same characteristic: how you behave determines how you stand before the god in question and where you go for eternity. All cut from the same cloth (giving them a common ancestor - satan). You cite 10,000 religions, I see but two. God vs Satan

Which is not to say a person from another faith can't be saved by God

It's the same with philosophies - they achieve the same end for folk which was the end sought at the start of it all with the Fall - to be independent of God. To be God. But they all run out of road before they get to that oh so close, oh so far, proof.

Which is why, although they appear different to theistic gods - I lump them in with the gods.

That is not how facts work.

Then as good as fact. Good enough to be taken as fact.

I imagine I have a fundamentally different way for telling I am right, fully accounting for your contradictory confidence, than you do. Why don't you go ahead and explain your way?

To you? That's not the set up. The set up is to an impartial onlooker, remember? And we haven't got one yet, other than by waving a magic wand. As I say, if they've no empirical experience then you won't be getting far with them, will you?

pauldla · 22-05-2019 07:09AM

"I've met God."

Was He chuffed, or did He manage to get a word in edgeways?

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Comments