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?
Comments
-
Which forms of non-empirical evidence are reliable, free from fraud and/or psychological effects and can be independently evaluated and tested?antiskeptic wrote: »Would that include non-empirical forms of evidence?
If you can find one I'm sure it would count.
Except you don't.antiskeptic wrote: »Empirical evidence I said. A kind of "empiricism uber alles". You see it alot in this particular church.
0 -
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »It's a position that holds..............is built on a hill of beans.
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)
Kind of a false dilema in terms of thoughts vs god there man.
Firstly I could have a lab run a MRI on my head while I was thinking about stuff and they could confirm I was having thoughts, so it is actually independantly verifiable. But I'll play along......
Every other human being capable of communicating testifies or has testified to have had thoughts aswell. There is no confliction. So I take it for granted that the thoughts have happened without any real empirical evidence in that case. Yes. If every single other human being alive and that has ever lived testified to the Christian god coming into their lives and "showing" himself to them in some way. Without a single conflicting experience. Then I experienced something similar, I would probably take it for granted that that had actually happened aswell. You see the obvious difference between the two dilemas.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
The above has already been responded to in the other lenghty thread several times man, I have no will to retrace previously covered ground with you in a never ending loop. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65073589&postcount=1890 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »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
If God exists then it is God who has already decided the way that humans can best discover knowledge, and the way humans are flawed in discovering knowledge. So it isn't us demanding anything of God, it is God being consistent with his own creation.
God cannot reveal himself to you non-empirically because God has created you to be flawed at view non-empirical things, ie things personally assessed. God can change his own creation to change all this but as such he hasn't
So it has nothing to do with us demanding anything of God, God is (if he exists) simply being consistent. It is the same reason God wouldn't reveal himself as shaped like a tree, since by his own standards of creation we couldn't tell the different since he already made a tree and it wasn't God.
If you have an issue with that take it up with God over how he created you.0 -
Is this antiskeptic dude a troll or what? Gravity doesn't exist? Come on folks, I can't believe there are responses to this person. Clearly insane. And no, that's not an insult. I genuinely believe antiskeptic is not right in the head - sorry antiskeptic, if I were you I would actually go and get checked up, a brain scan or something.
0 -
-
-
Is this antiskeptic dude a troll or what? Gravity doesn't exist? Come on folks, I can't believe there are responses to this person. Clearly insane. And no, that's not an insult. I genuinely believe antiskeptic is not right in the head - sorry antiskeptic, if I were you I would actually go and get checked up, a brain scan or something.
There is an observed effect which we call gravity. Something is known about the circumstances that bring about strengthening/weakening of that effect. But noone knows why the effect exists. It just is...
That's the statement (right or wrong) in context. If I were you I'd polish up on my reading comprehension skills. 0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »There is an observed effect which we call gravity. Something is known about the circumstances that bring about strengthening/weakening of that effect. But noone knows why the effect exists. It just is...
That's the statement (right or wrong) in context. If I were you I'd polish up on my reading comprehension skills.
What's you point anyway? Are you saying that becuase we don't know everything about the universe then we need to slot in God?
And slotting in God intellectually satisfies you?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
god being omnipotent isnt it at all possible that he chose to impliment this "6th sense" at a time of his choosing . for example he didnt think people would be physically or mentally evolved to handle this new ability and therefore chose to delay its implimentation. just a side note that i dont believe in god but i do respect that other people do so dont think im some looney religious nut about to go on a rampage . also fascinating conversation even if it is gone a little of topic of the thread
poor modding perhaps ? not for me to say only suggest
....please dont ban me 0 -
-
-
-
If you like. I don't think it really matters since any time I've suggested something God is supposed to have done is illogical I'm met with cries of how can I be so arrogant to think I know how God works and what is or isn't logical for God.
You're tendency is the use the word "logical" when you really mean "not the kind of behaviour I would expect of God". If you dealt with the logic and not what you find reasonable you might meet less resistance from me.I prefer then to discuss what is likely rather than what is possible or impossible.
Likely is fine by me. I'd be suggesting at the outset that there is no way to establish likelyhood which leaves us with "possible - without further solid commentary either way"Yes. If you want to name me one non-empirical "philosophy" that has actually come up with knowledge that we hold as natural fact I'm all ears.
Leaving aside your philosophies view on what constitutes the attributes of knowledge - because obviously what constitutes the attributes of knowledge stem from the philosophy itself..
In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"Not really. If I said democracy, while flawed, was the best system of government I doubt many people would take offense at that despite there being tons of other systems of government. Nor would they take offense if I appealed to history to support such a claim.
I can't help but feel your own objection to empiricism is that that is doesn't help you confirm the beliefs you wish to be true.
Feelings as we know, can suffer from subjectivity
When I said lame I meant that it handwaved away all other views. Since most people wouldn't agree with you in your handwaving, there's little point in citing a illustration where most people would agree with you. What most people think is, you yourself seem to agree with, isn't a sound indicator of anything this way or that anyway.Not at all. As I said philosophical empiricism is God's invention, not mine (if we assume he exists).
The importance of empirical evidencing would, I agree, be God's creation. The empiricism-uber-alles viewpoint of the philosophical empiricist clearly wouldn't be - a fact testified to by the wide divergence of alternative views.I'm not sure what you mean by solution? Other philosophies don't work in terms of gathering accurate knowledge about existence, they are simply exercises in human wishful thinking.
That I would say is rather their issue rather than mine.
If you don't believe me have a think about which ones do actually work and perhaps start listing them with examples of where they did work (ie provided accurate knowledge)
You mean to say that you don't see the problem with taking a word and it's attributes, which is defined differently by different philosophies, and claiming your own version king? By ringfencing the concept of knowledge in a way that if is forced to conformed to the demands of empiricism, you auto-exclude all other ways of ringfencing it.
Suppose we all did as you did?
This is lame.Like I said it is your definition of God. If you wish to change this definition I'm happy to work off the new one.
As it stands it is logically consistent with the properties you wish me to consider in relation to god
Yes, yes. But the request is that you point out the logical inconsistancy - not simply assert there is one. But wait!!"Work in progress" is logically inconsistent with an omniscient being.
Progress involves work and refinement based on feed back from this work. It is a exercise in discovery, a method of discerning knowledge through construction.
An omniscient being has no need for such a process has he already possesses all knowledge. As such it is illogical that he would partake in such an process for said reason.
IF our decision is desired THEN there is a need for process IF we are time bound creatures. God's knowing what our decision will be before we make it doesn't dispel with the need that we make it (if our decision is desired by God).
The focus would be less on discovery and more on enabling the decision to be made. It's not illogical that we can decide even though God knows. Knowing what we decide doesn't logically require that what we decide is determined.Yes. He is defined (in this exercise at least) as omnipotent and omniscient. Humans aren't. Apply (as you did above) human like concepts such as work in progress to such a being is rather illogical.
See above. You've attached a whole load of human concepts to process. Have you ever engaged in repetitive work which involves no learning or discovery. Yet is process.
Ask a factory worker.Great. See above then for an explanation of why it is highly unlikely a omniscient being would partake in a work in progress exercise as a human would.
See above for an explanation that takes a completely different goal into account.I think I am, I'm happy to go into as much or as little detail as you like. Perhaps though it would be helpful to the debate if you provided counter arguments and examples, rather than just telling me I'm wrong.
I'm not telling you're wrong. I'm telling you that you've made a claim about unlikely, the basis of which is frequently suggested as centring on logic. Yet logic doesn't feature much in the actual substance of your responses.
For instance, it's not likely that a cow jump over the moon but logic doesn't prevent him doing so. In discussing the unlikeliness of this occurring, I shouldn't cite the illogicality of it. Much of what you say "isn't logical" should actually be framed as "unreasonable sounding to you"
I accept you attempt above to point to illogic (God knowing all means no process required). Hopefully you'll deal with my response (which points out a logical requirement for process) along a similar track.Well to be honest with you have much less patience for your particular brand of nonsensical arguments a second time around. Apologies if the charges against you retreating to comforting beliefs sounds like personal digs. I prefer to think of them as simply cutting through the bullspit.
Fair enough. Don't mind though, if I cut to the chase of your posts and filter out the rest. The digs are understandible given your overarching standpoint. You'll accept though, that I don't see my viewpoint in that way - and am interested only in how you substantiate your attempts to demolish my view/support your own.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »You're tendency is the use the word "logical" when you really mean "not the kind of behaviour I would expect of God".
No, I using logical to mean pertaining to the internal rules of a system.
If I want a car and buy a car it is illogical that I would then on purpose drive it off a cliff. Why? Because that does not logically match the initial preposition that I want a car. I could still do it mind, but it would be illogical and as such unlikely. It would call into question the initial presumption that I wanted a car. This is based on the current rules of the sytem. You can of course introduce a new preposition, that for example my mum is being held hostage by a drug lord who wants my car destroyed because it is cured with the spirit of his brother. But that changes the system and thus the logic of the system.
The idea than an omnipotent/omniscient being would do a work in progress is illogical based on the initial presumptions of the system we are discussing (ie God). If you want to change the initial presumptions go ahead but after awhile such an exercise becomes some what pointless.
Shifting the goal posts as it were.antiskeptic wrote: »Likely is fine by me. I'd be suggesting at the outset that there is no way to establish likelyhood which leaves us with "possible - without further solid commentary either way"
I would have thought an omniscient being is much more likely to be consistent with his own nature than to be merely random. As such it should be relatively easy to gauge likelihood
If you wish to subscribe to a random God then of course it stands to reason that I've no clue what he is doing from any particular point in time and thus cannot gauge the likelihood of any particular behavior over any other. But equally neither can you and as such the discussion becomes rather pointless.antiskeptic wrote: »Leaving aside your philosophies view on what constitutes the attributes of knowledge - because obviously what constitutes the attributes of knowledge stem from the philosophy itself..
Lets not, shall we. Lets instead stay on this topic and you provide examples of non-empirical systems which have in the past provided accurate knowledge about reality.
And your non-empirical systems of ascertaining knowledge attempt to over come this problem in what way?antiskeptic wrote: »Feelings as we know, can suffer from subjectivityantiskeptic wrote: »The importance of empirical evidencing would, I agree, be God's creation. The empiricism-uber-alles viewpoint of the philosophical empiricist clearly wouldn't be - a fact testified to by the wide divergence of alternative views.
Can you detail these alternative views and how they lead to accurate knowledge about reality?antiskeptic wrote: »By ringfencing the concept of knowledge in a way that if is forced to conformed to the demands of empiricism, you auto-exclude all other ways of ringfencing it.
You wish to redefine "knowledge" now as well.
Ok, take what ever version of knowledge you are happiest with and then explain who non-empirical methods you mention lead to accurate knowledge about any particular aspect of reality you wish to use as an example.
Suppose you actually answer the question rather than stalling with appeals to arrogance (see my previous post about how found I am of that particular theist stalling tactic)antiskeptic wrote: »Suppose we all did as you did?antiskeptic wrote: »IF our decision is desired THEN there is a need for process IF we are time bound creatures. God's knowing what our decision will be before we make it doesn't dispel with the need that we make it (if our decision is desired by God).
and IF God is required to wait for us to make the decision in our own time line.
Of course that is not illogical but that is only because you have introduced a whole load of new prepositions that redefine the parameters of the system.
For example it is illogical for a loving god to torture his subjects.
You can change that to be logical if you introduce the parameter that in order to save his subjects for a faith worth than torture he has to torture them.
This is why these discussions are some what pointless because when ever you guys run into problems you simply introduce what ever new prepositions that make your beliefs work.
I have no reason to believe it is necessary for God to wait for us to make our decisions in order to introduce this 6th sense of yours. You can ask me to consider a What if, but there is a limitless number of What ifs You only seem to consider the ones that lead to your comforting solution.
We are still left with the problem that there is no empirical evidence for this 6th sense in a universe that God designed humans to require empirical evidence to accurately gauge reality. But heck you can introduce any preposition you like to get around this. What IF God lost a a game of cards to Satan where he said to Satan that if he lost he would make a new sense that was undetectable. What IF wicknight, What IF.
You might as ask me to consider What if God is exactly as you say he is, now based on the logic of that system is it illogical that he does what you say.
It gets real silly real fast.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement