antiskeptic wrote: » I don't hold it equal to science because it's better than science. It makes sense of far more important (to me) questions than "what's the diameter of the world".
antiskeptic wrote: » Again I'll note it being indistinguishable for you. You don't speak for everyone however - you don't have the authority for that.
antiskeptic wrote: » How can I provide an example when it's a principle being talked about. Science itself says it doesn't comment absolutely. And it's the absolute likelyhood that reflects actual reality - not the apparent
antiskeptic wrote: » To combat your own philosophicial musings. You don't seem to be aware of the assumptions your standing upon when you throw stones.
antiskeptic wrote: » I don't answer them according to the narrow framework your operating according to. A frame work that rests firmly on the philosophy of empiricism.
antiskeptic wrote: » Gravity doesn't exist - only the effects associated with an explanatory notion called Gravity exist. And those effects are 5 sense detectable.
antiskeptic wrote: » Like I say, God appears to equip unbelievers with a means to sustain their unbelief. No doubt you've seen the old woman/young woman optical trick? The one in which the precisely same data can be interpreted in two completely different ways? Note that once the primarly connection is made regarding an interpretation of what's been looked at ("It's an old hag!"), all the other elements of the data slot into place to reinforce that interpretation. So no, God doesn't trick people. But I do think he allows the unbelief to be sustained.
Wicknight wrote: » Which ones? Most of the laws of nature are the way they are because they are the result of more fundamental ones. If you are asking why the fundamental ones are the way they are I don't know.
I imagine you are implying that because I don't know the fundamentals doesn't mean I can't work out "downstream" mechanics.
But we both know that doesn't work for "God did it" because there are no downstream mechanics with a supernatural deity. He just does what he does.
Can you tell me what "God did it" explains, either upstream or down stream, please.
Easy comforting answers that have never attempted to be tested are something to be sneered at. Pretending we know more than we do is something to be sneered at.
I've no problem with you claiming I'm up on a pedestal.
I am up on a pedestal. I'm up there because I'm sick and tired of the nonsense that permeates our modern society and this idea that if we just believe something then that is good enough and perfectly valid.
So yes I'm on a pedestal because I prefer living in 2010 not 1410.
antiskeptic wrote: » I've a feeling that it's your residence on what might be called the "advantaged side of the fence" has something to do with that. Most of the worlds population wouldn't notice the difference.
antiskeptic wrote: » Gravity doesn't exist
antiskeptic wrote: » Modern society? You mean the most savage, cruel society that has ever existed on the face of the earth (in terms of scale of activity).
antiskeptic wrote: » Yet it's not religion that causes all this misery. It's the same old things that have always caused it. That thing the Bible does a hell of a better job explaining that any science I've ever seen.
antiskeptic wrote: » Precisely. You start with the way some fundamentals are and consider the mechanics of what results from them. Similarily, God is the way he is and I consider the mechanics of what results from that.
antiskeptic wrote: » And one of the things he did was make man and tell him not to eat.
antiskeptic wrote: » Sin explains. Where sin came from is explained.
antiskeptic wrote: » There is no particular reason that the right answer be hard. Nor is the fact that it's comforting detract from it.
antiskeptic wrote: » As for testing? I assume you mean empirical only testing - the only standard for a philosophy whose truth can't be empirically tested.
antiskeptic wrote: » The pedestal is illusionary - that's my problem with it. It's not science you're defending here - it's a philosophy called empiricism. It pervades all you say. Yet you don't see it.
antiskeptic wrote: » That thing the Bible does a hell of a better job explaining that any science I've ever seen.
Sam Vimes wrote: » When you're the all powerful creator of all these things that exist to equip unbelievers to sustain their unbelief, what exactly is the difference between tricking them and deliberately providing them with everything they need to be satisfied that a falsehood is the truth?
antiskeptic wrote: » 1) unbelief is a state desired by men.
antiskeptic wrote: » 2) Man plucks from the available menu proferred by God in order to construct a nest for that unbelief. So that the desire for what unbelief offers can be satisified
antiskeptic wrote: » All God is doing is making it possible for an unbeliever to sustain his position.
antiskeptic wrote: » It's not so much trickery, as providing that which the unbeliever desires.
antiskeptic wrote: » God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.
robindch wrote: » That's not the only thing you've done in this thread: you've also ignored my question three times, and your dignified, but complete, silence on the issue of the credibility of the gospel accounts warms the cockles of my atheistic heart on this splendid morning
:)Once the forum's very basic rules regarding etiquette are observed, this forum welcomes all comers, regardless of their beliefs concerning religion.
Wicknight wrote: » But you have no further knowledge of of these "downstream" mechanics than I do. So "God did it" adds nothing, it is not an explanation.
Why? And why did he decide to punish man in the way he did?
Where it comes from is not that relevant since everything comes from God. If God exists then "God did it" is the cause of everything but it is not an explanation with the why.
Which the Bible does not tell us. So it is not an explanation.
Odd are it won't be though, since there are only a few possible answer that are comforting and a million that aren't.
So you agree that sending your sick child to a witch doctor is as useful as sending him to a medical doctor since testing has no value in determining accuracy of concepts?
If you think science and empiricism are different you don't understand either.
Nonsense, you are living in the safest peaceful time in human history.
But you are simply avoiding the central issue here, do you accept testing in things like medicine, or is every opinion equally valid so long as you believe in it?
That is hardly surprising. The Bible tells us what we want to hear, what makes sense and is mentally comforting. The thing is the universe is actually under obligation to make sense and be mentally comforting.
Again do you think empirical testing has valid?
antiskeptic wrote: » We don't know why gravity - but we can examine what occurs as a result We don't know why God holy - but we can examine what occurs as a result.
antiskeptic wrote: » Because it pleased him to do it appears to be the answer. Why did this please him as opposed to something else? God is as he is - just as any first cause is.
antiskeptic wrote: » Tell that to the person who wins the lotto on their first attempt. Easy and comforting. And eminently possible.
antiskeptic wrote: » My contention is with your applying philsophical empiricism across the board - as if empirical means are the only way to knowledge. I'm not denying the value of empirically-arrived at knowledge.
antiskeptic wrote: » By "modern" I didn't take you to mean the thinnest slice chosen for it's relative peacefulness. Say the last hundred years or so - the bloodiest of all time.
antiskeptic wrote: » I've pointed out the conflation between the philosophy empiricism and the activitiy empirical testing. My comments are directed at your philosophy - one that cannot demonstrate itself to be the case.
antiskeptic wrote: » I wasn't talking about we. I was talking about me. I've to compare what science says about say, evil, with what the Bible says about evil. And I find the Bibles take one that makes more sense out of the observations than science.
PDN wrote: » Yes. They are welcome to be insulted and mocked while the moderator adds his thanks to the sarcastic posts that are doing the mocking.
antiskeptic wrote: » You're not considering the sequence: 1) unbelief is a state desired by men. 2) Man plucks from the available menu proferred by God in order to construct a nest for that unbelief. So that the desire for what unbelief offers can be satisified All God is doing is making it possible for an unbeliever to sustain his position. It's not so much trickery, as providing that which the unbeliever desires.
antiskeptic wrote: » We don't know why gravity - but we can examine what occurs as a result We don't know why God holy - but we can examine what occurs as a result. That why is like asking why does gravity act as it does? You're not dealing with downstream there. God, like gravity, would have the attributes he/it has and that's that. Whether naturalistic or God, the why question doesn't exist at the source. Why gravity?
strobe wrote: » Philosophical empiricism?
PDN wrote: » I have no intention of participating in such a discussion given the format and moderation of this forum.
PDN wrote: » I am convinced that if I posted that Saturday precedes Sunday then certain posters would use it as a pretext to start making snide and personal comments about me and how hard done by they are because of the moderating policy on another forum.
PDN wrote: » Of course if that is displeasing to you and Dades you only have to let me know and I will comply with any request to desist.
robindch wrote: » If you have any complaints about the moderation in this forum, please feel free to take them to [url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin
Wicknight wrote: » LOL, you should feel at home then :rolleyes:
PDN wrote: » I have no complaints about the moderation of this [...] partisan forum.
PDN wrote: » [...] Christianity [...] is also a partisan forum with partisan mods.
PDN wrote: » Yes. They are welcome to be insulted and mocked while the moderator adds his thanks to the sarcastic posts that are doing the mocking. .... making snide and personal comments about me
Sam Vimes wrote: » In fairness PDN, if you gave a bit less you might just get a bit less in return. From where I'm sitting this tone you speak of has nothing to do with any partisanship or bias against christians. Plenty of christians come here and have no snide personal comments made about them or insults directed towards them
PDN wrote: » Can you name one Christian who has posted here with any kind of frequency without receiving snide personal comments or insults?
King Mob wrote: » Wow. Just wow. You've opened my eyes. It's clearly the gravity fairy! She has shown herself to me and she explains it all!
strobe wrote: » Philosophical empiricism? What the hell is that Anti-skeptic?
If I chose to rely on emperical evidence when testing a vaccine and then chose to rely on it when testing a jet engine, does the fact I required emperical evidence on both things mean I hold to this "philosophical empiricism".
Where do you draw the line?
How would it make any sense for me to require empirical evidence for the vaccine and jet engine, realise that that was the only evidence that proved useful in knowing anything about them but then decide I was just going to stare at my prototype digital radio and decide "Yeah my gut feeling tells me it works grand, no need to empirically test anything before I pitch it to that company"?
Haven't we covered this ground before. I can't believe you still don't grasp the concept. There was a whole thread dedicated to it before. Why not just go and re-read that thread instead of reposting the same stuff here. But at this stage I think it would probably be a waste of time, you seem to have some mental block to taking on what people are telling you about it. It was made very clear to you why empiricism is what people require.
antiskeptic wrote: » It's a position that holds (in it's more extreme forms) that knowledge can only be arrived at via 5 sense experience/detection
antiskeptic wrote: » I understand what empirical evidence is (to a degree). I also understand what philosophical empiricism is (to a degree). You appear to be confusing the one for the other. I'm a great admirer of empirical evidence: it's sure darn useful. It's just that I don't worship it.
Sam Vimes wrote: » I'm still failing to see the difference. Someone does not have to "desire" to be an unbeliever.
If god has provided enough for someone to be satisfied in unbelief then a totally unbiased observer who may actually believe in god if the evidence suggested it could end up an unbeliever because god has provided things for the explicit purpose of providing support for a falsehood. This is another form of the old "test of faith" argument and it turns god into a liar.
And what is god giving you this experience that has absolutely convinced you of his existence if not tipping the scales in his own favour?
robindch wrote: » That's a very limited view of what empiricism is and I certainly don't know anybody who holds it. A more reasonable, measured view is that intellectual positions should be held with convictions which are proportional to the evidence supporting them.
A+A people worship evidence? I don't think that we worship anything -- that's the province of religious people
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
