Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

1…468910

Comments

  • #152
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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".
    Ah so testable answers where you can actually see if their true or not?
    They aren't important.

    And so we're clear, God can't then answer questions about the physical universe?
    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.
    Me and everyone else who isn't you.
    How do think other people distinguish it?

    You realise that you can use empiricism to distinguish reality from fiction?
    Yet your made up stuff is still better?
    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
    Provide some examples of phenomena that you think science doesn't accurately explain.
    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.
    So when you become a believer do you have your irony glands removed or do they just shrivel?
    You are assuming you are infallible.
    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.
    Yea, why answer questions you have to back up with evidence?


  • #153
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Gravity doesn't exist - only the effects associated with an explanatory notion called Gravity exist. And those effects are 5 sense detectable.
    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!


  • #154
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    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.
    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?


  • #155
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    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.


    I imagine you are implying that because I don't know the fundamentals doesn't mean I can't work out "downstream" mechanics.

    Exactly.

    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.

    And one of the things he did was make man and tell him not to eat. The rest is ... er.. history. Within that there are all sorts of things to tease apart. Downstream from God stuff.



    Can you tell me what "God did it" explains, either upstream or down stream, please.

    Sin explains. Where sin came from is explained. Why God made it so that man could sin is explained. Why God decided to make man? I don't know that - God just did it.


    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.

    There is no particular reason that the right answer be hard. Nor is the fact that it's comforting detract from it. As for testing? I assume you mean empirical only testing - the only standard for a philosophy whose truth can't be empirically tested.



    I've no problem with you claiming I'm up on a pedestal.

    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.
    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.

    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). 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.

    So yes I'm on a pedestal because I prefer living in 2010 not 1410.

    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.


  • #156
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    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.

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Gravity doesn't exist
    That's right -- the universe sucks.


  • #158
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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).
    And yet in terms of percentages, the time we're living through now is the most wildly productive, peaceful, trusting, law-abiding, long-living, starvation-free, threat-free, friendly, gosh-darn-it pleasant time that humanity has ever experienced. Here's Stephen Pinker on the useless Myth of Violence:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
    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.
    I've highlighted the bit you need to pay attention to.

    Have a read of Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect which explains one well-attested theory of "evil" in layman's terms. Without needing to propose the existence of any invisible horned chappies.


  • #159
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.

    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.

    I don't have an explanation either, but I'm not pretending I do.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And one of the things he did was make man and tell him not to eat.

    Why? And why did he decide to punish man in the way he did?

    This is the thing, again "God did it" explains nothing cause you don't know why. Why one way over the other.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Sin explains. Where sin came from is explained.
    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.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is no particular reason that the right answer be hard. Nor is the fact that it's comforting detract from it.

    Odd are it won't be though, since there are only a few possible answer that are comforting and a million that aren't.
    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.

    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?
    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.

    If you think science and empiricism are different you don't understand either.
    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).
    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?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That thing the Bible does a hell of a better job explaining that any science I've ever seen.
    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.
    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.

    Most of the worlds population would be dying if that was the case.

    Again do you think empirical testing has valid?


  • #160
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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?

    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.

    God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.


  • #161
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    1) unbelief is a state desired by men.

    Why?
    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

    But all these things that support mans disbelief - empiclism, the scientific method etc.- all supposedly came from religious institutions of learning. Why would god give man evidence of his non-existence when man was clearly on gods side in the first place? Why does he keep giving evidence that builds on upon previous evidence? Why does god punish rational enquiry and reward blinding acceptance of religious authority?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    All God is doing is making it possible for an unbeliever to sustain his position.

    A position god put him in the first place.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It's not so much trickery, as providing that which the unbeliever desires.

    Why would he do that?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.

    No, he tips the scales in favour of getting to dole out punishment to people who dont believe in something god himself has convinced them of not believing.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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
    I'm glad your cockles are warmed.

    I have no intention of participating in such a discussion given the format and moderation of this forum.

    I had understood that posters on any forum of boards.ie are free to respond or not respond to whatever topics or subjects they choose without being hassled for so doing. I chose to interact in this thread on a particular issue, the strawmanning of Soul Winner's argument, even though other posters have tried very hard to move the goal posts or to settle old scores by goading me into making an intemperate response that they feel might earn me an infraction from a hometown ref.
    :)Once the forum's very basic rules regarding etiquette are observed, this forum welcomes all comers, regardless of their beliefs concerning religion.

    Yes. They are welcome to be insulted and mocked while the moderator adds his thanks to the sarcastic posts that are doing the mocking.

    Not that I'm telling you how to run your forum (that would be backseat modding), you and Dades have a perfect right to set whatever tone you want and that is none of my business. But those who don't share your ideology are, I presume, free to choose whether to post here or not and in response to which topics they choose.

    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. So, I choose to engage in this forum on a very limited basis and only with narrow parameters. 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.


  • #163
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    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 kind of separation between God and downstream of God

    Why? And why did he decide to punish man in the way he did?

    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.

    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.

    Whether naturalistic or God, the why question doesn't exist at the source. Why gravity?
    Which the Bible does not tell us. So it is not an explanation.

    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.


    Odd are it won't be though, since there are only a few possible answer that are comforting and a million that aren't.

    Tell that to the person who wins the lotto on their first attempt. Easy and comforting. And eminently possible.


    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?

    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.

    The two things empirically arrived at knowledge and philosophical empiricism are two different things.

    If you think science and empiricism are different you don't understand either.

    Philosophical empiricism.

    Nonsense, you are living in the safest peaceful time in human history.

    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.

    That kind of modern.


    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?

    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.

    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.


    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. The universe isn't obliged to make sense, but when it does, it's worth taking note of whose pointing that out.


    Again do you think empirical testing has valid?

    Clarifed above.


  • #164
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.

    Yes but we want to know "why gravity". That is the point. We want an explanation.

    God did it it is not an explanation, just a reason to stop asking.
    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.

    A perfect example of the above.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Tell that to the person who wins the lotto on their first attempt. Easy and comforting. And eminently possible.

    And rather unlikely.

    You could win the Lotto, you probably won't. God could be the answer, he probably isn't.
    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.

    Ah, now it becomes clear.

    So you are happy to apply empirical testing to somethings, just not to the things that you would rather not have turn out to be untrue, such as your belief in God.
    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.

    The last hundred years have not been the bloodiest of all time, see Robins link.
    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.

    Sorry antiskeptic, that is just smoke and mirrors. I never mentioned a philosophy I mentioned a specific belief, your belief that God has let you know he exists.

    You don't want to empirically test that because you don't want to open it up to not being true. You would much rather it was true.

    That sort of thing leads to parents abandoning their children to their disease.
    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.

    Empirical observations? :rolleyes:


  • #165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.

    LOL, you should feel at home then :rolleyes:


  • #166
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    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.
    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.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.

    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?


  • #167
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    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?

    Just got off the phone with gravity there, it wants you to stop abusing it.


  • #168
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    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.


  • #169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    strobe wrote: »
    Philosophical empiricism?

    Testing things that theists would rather you didn't test because they would much prefer that they were true than not true.

    For example, I don't want you to test whether the girl in work likes me. I think she does, but if she doesn't that would be upsetting. So don't for the love of Dawkins ask her if she likes me. That would risk the possibility that she doesn't actually like me, and that would be upsetting.


  • #170
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    I have no intention of participating in such a discussion given the format and moderation of this forum.
    If you have any complaints about the moderation in this forum, please feel free to take them to Feedback.
    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.
    The 'report post' button is there for people to report posts that they feel violate forum rules. As it happens, in this thread, an A+A poster was the first one to receive a finger-wagging for posting unbecoming.
    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.
    Not at all! As above, this forum welcomes all-comers, especially those with divergent opinions. As a moderator with strongly-held opposing opinions, you are especially welcome!


  • #171
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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
    I have no complaints about the moderation of this forum. It is a partisan forum for people of a particular opinion and moderated by people who are passionate about that same opinion. And that is absolutely fine by me.

    I was politely explaining to monosharp why such a discussion as he was proposing would not go well in a partisan forum such as this.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    LOL, you should feel at home then :rolleyes:

    I'm not pretending that the Christianity forum is impartial or a suitable venue for the discussion monosharp was proposing. It is also a partisan forum with partisan mods.


  • #173
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    I have no complaints about the moderation of this [...] partisan forum.
    PDN wrote: »
    [...] Christianity [...] is also a partisan forum with partisan mods.
    partizan.png

    God's warriors vs ~god's warriors?

    I'm sure we can do better than that :)


  • #174
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    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

    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


  • #175
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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

    Can you name one Christian who has posted here with any kind of frequency without receiving snide personal comments or insults?


  • #176
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Can you name one Christian who has posted here with any kind of frequency without receiving snide personal comments or insults?
    Drop the persecution complex -- this ain't an end-times revival meeting :)

    As you're no doubt aware, every personal insult I've been aware of has been actioned by either Dades or myself and that includes including slapping permanent bans on repeat offenders.

    Any further comments on forum moderation will be deleted.


  • #177
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    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!

    Gravity fairy, now that's just nonsense.

    It's all explained by the theory of Intelligent Falling

    "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down"

    Teach the controversy, schools - let students make an informed decision!


  • #178
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    strobe wrote: »
    Philosophical empiricism? What the hell is that Anti-skeptic?

    It's a position that holds (in it's more extreme forms) that knowledge can only be arrived at via 5 sense experience/detection
    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".

    No.
    Where do you draw the line?

    At the fact that this particular philosophy - although prevelent in the AA forum - cannot be demonstrated to be the case. And certaintly not empirically.

    This doesn't prove any other ways of arriving at knowledge. But that's another issue: the point is the dogmatic insistance that if it's not open to empirical investigation then you can't know it/it's rubbish/it's delusion .. and all the various ways the philosopy is expressed... is built on a hill of beans.


    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"?

    False dilemma.

    But what about the thoughts in your head. What empirical evidence have you got that they have happened. Or are solely yours? Assuming you have no empirical evidence that can demonstrate what you suspect is the case, do you think you can know they are your thoughts.

    Or are you just assuming they are and moving on (which brings into question the sense of supposing someone else deluded)

    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.

    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.


    I can understand why people require empirical evidence. It's because they are philosophical empiricists. If they weren't then they would consider other forms of evidence as valid (if not necessarily convincing)

    Tell me: if God indeed existed, do you think he would be capable of demonstrating his existance to you directly? If answering no and insisting that he demonstrate himself empirically or else you cannot believe, aren't you simply demanding that God utilise an alternative method of revelation whose trustworthyness (as you perceive it) was established by him.

    Seems you're snookered either way :)


  • #179
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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
    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.
    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.
    A+A people worship evidence? I don't think that we worship anything -- that's the province of religious people :)


  • #180
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm still failing to see the difference. Someone does not have to "desire" to be an unbeliever.

    The way in which the desire is manifest is mans innate desire for self-first. It's the root cause behind individual and corporate wrong doing. We all have it sown in our bones as it were at concepion - it's inbuilt. So it's not so much that we want to not believe in God. It's that our desire for self-first demands our sustaining unbelief.
    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.

    It's the Old Hag/Young Woman gig again. The exact same evidence can be seen in two completely different ways. I look in wonder at the workings of the world as revealed by science and see no need to conclude Old Hag. That same information reveals to me a different picture altogether: the mind of God.

    I imagine our unbiased believer can do the same as me?

    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?

    God turning up tipped the scales in his own favour. But his turning up was requested by me so you can see that my will was the deciding factor. I've covered it elsewhere so won't here: it's possible for an unbeliever to respond positively/negatively to God's enquiry. All without knowing God exists.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    Would that include non-empirical forms of evidence?


    A+A people worship evidence? I don't think that we worship anything -- that's the province of religious people :)

    Empirical evidence I said. A kind of "empiricism uber alles". You see it alot in this particular church.

    :)


Advertisement