Theism's fatal flaw
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(19-02-2015 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 09:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  No, No, No, No, No. Not provable. There is only one source to look to for the story of Jesus, the Bible. A claim can not be evidence of its own truth. You should know that. And when I read about Jesus raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, being resurrected and talking to his disciples after three days, there is no alternative for me but to imagine these things. I can't verify that these things happened. I can't investigate in any way other than to read the Bible and just accept it on faith without evidence. When I'm imagining Jesus turning water into wine how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?

May I kindly tell you how you just shifted the goalposts? Because YOU wrote:

"By their own description of God, it is un-observable, incorporeal, supernatural and therefore neither provable or dis-provable."

By WHOSE own description? Every Christian, sane or nutty, ever at TTA, says Jesus is God in corporeal FLESH. Now, while even Peter himself said that having seen Jesus in the flesh and beholding His glory and so on, there was better proof in the form of fulfilled prophecy, you are just putting words in my mouth. They don't taste good, but I'll pass them eventually. Smile

And regarding the new goalposts, it IS provable and the Bible consistently offers proof. But your lack of desire to test and prove and know is neither my own fault nor the Bible's. We are both trying. Smile

Hi Q,

I don't think I'm moving any goal posts. I don't see how it is provable from the Bible. Since the Bible is the source of both the prophesy and the claims that the prophesy was fulfilled then we have the same problem. The claims of the Bible can not be evidence of their own truth. That is circular reasoning. Where does the Bible consistently offer proof that can be verified objectively?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
19-02-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
If one removes the plethora of pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings from the bible, one would have very little left in which to consider...thus with so much fabrication, fiction, forgery and fantasy, the bible is a disingenuous book from which to ascertain anything truthful, valid or real.

I find more meaningful words in the musings of spongebob.

Are there some good messages within the bible? Yup. Are there a plethora of bad messages within the bible? Yup. DO we know if jesus, (if he existed..the man I mean, obviously the demi god was a fabrication) said any of those things? No. Can we find good messages from the Saturday morning spongebob cartoons? Yup. Does that make spongebob a god? No. Perhaps we can find positive phrases and meaningful words with scientology...does that make scientology right, or in anyway...divinely inspired? no. How about breatharianism, can we find some positive statement within that stupid religion? yup, does that make it divinely inspired? no..........

THINK

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(19-02-2015 03:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 01:59 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I see Tomasia. Your point was that two people can come to opposite conclusions and both of them can be right. Is that what you were meaning?

No, while they both came to two different conclusions, only one of them could be right.

Quote:I still contend that we can not tell what their starting point is from your example but lets assume they both begin with a proper starting point, existence exists, and they come to two opposing conclusions. Evaluations like this depend greatly on what values a person holds.

I don't find it to be a question of values, though they do likely play a role here. Rather, one of them might have a more expansive view of life, based on what they've seen and been through, one of them might have a better capacity to take their experiences in, to evaluate them, to gather in which direction they point. One of their perspectives on life rather being representative of the whole, might be quite partial, while the other's might not have the same limitation.

While the both have been led to different conclusions, only one them can be right, and the one that is right, is likely the one who perspective is more encompassing than the other, less myopic than the other.

Either way they've both started at a valid philosophical starting point. I don't see how you'd be able to deny this. But I just want to ensure that you do in fact agree.

Hi Tomasia,

Thanks for your replies,

I do agree with you in part. I will have to respond later tonight as I don't have enough time on my lunch break.

Robert

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
19-02-2015, 04:55 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(19-02-2015 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 09:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  No, No, No, No, No. Not provable. There is only one source to look to for the story of Jesus, the Bible. A claim can not be evidence of its own truth. You should know that. And when I read about Jesus raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, being resurrected and talking to his disciples after three days, there is no alternative for me but to imagine these things. I can't verify that these things happened. I can't investigate in any way other than to read the Bible and just accept it on faith without evidence. When I'm imagining Jesus turning water into wine how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?

May I kindly tell you how you just shifted the goalposts? Because YOU wrote:

"By their own description of God, it is un-observable, incorporeal, supernatural and therefore neither provable or dis-provable."

By WHOSE own description? Every Christian, sane or nutty, ever at TTA, says Jesus is God in corporeal FLESH. Now, while even Peter himself said that having seen Jesus in the flesh and beholding His glory and so on, there was better proof in the form of fulfilled prophecy, you are just putting words in my mouth. They don't taste good, but I'll pass them eventually. Smile

And regarding the new goalposts, it IS provable and the Bible consistently offers proof. But your lack of desire to test and prove and know is neither my own fault nor the Bible's. We are both trying. Smile

The Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-02-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
Hi CJLR,

I'm going to respond to your points in a couple of posts rather than one huge wall of text and because my time to post is extremely limited due to work constraints.

I had written: None of us observe objects?

You replied: I can't recall objecting to [i]that, actually...
[/i]
I'm glad we agree on this. The Kantian notion that we do not perceive objects but only appearances is false. When we perceive a tree, we are perceiving an object not some appearance separate from it. We perceive objects by means of their appearance to our senses. If another being were perceiving the same tree with a radically different type of sense modality, such as echo location or radar, we would both be perceiving the same object, just in a different form.

I had asked: The objects we observe are not what they are independent of our observing them?

You replied: It is of great utility to assume so, but relatively trivial to establish that they are not necessarily so.

It is unnecessary to assume this since it is directly observable. This is the law of identity and the principle of the primacy of existence, both of which are axiomatic. Things are what they are and do what they do independent of the conscious activity by which we perceive them. Axiomatic truths are outside the province of proof since their truth is implicit in any proof.

You had also replied: Can you convince a hallucinating psychotic that their perceptions are not valid? Notwithstanding what a trivial trick it is to fool our own senses; it is incredibly easy to cause oneself or others to observe objects which are entirely artifacts of perception...

It's odd that you would use a psychotic as an example. No I couldn't convince a psychotic of anything because by definition he is not in touch with reality. Yes our eyes can be fooled but the very fact that we can know this is a testament to the validity of the senses. How would we know the difference between an optical illusion and reality if our senses were not valid? The fact that our senses have limitations is not a problem it is a precondition of their existence. All existents are finite and limited. They have a specific identity and only that identity. That is what makes them possible. To demand perfection of the senses is an irrational standard. The classic example of the stick appearing bent in water is a perfect example. If our senses are invalid how do we know that the stick is in water in the first place and how do you know the stick is actually straight?

Also there is the fact that we have more than one sense. Vision is our primary sense but we have 4 others with which to check the validity of our vision. Our senses are self validating in a non-circular way.

You also replied: After all, a single observer's perceptions are meaningless - there's no possible means to assess their validity, even assuming (quite reasonably) that they might be valid or invalid in the first place. Only collectively and in aggregate can we draw some informed conclusions about what might be said to exist, and how we relate to it.

Again, there is nothing we need do volitionally to validate our perceptions. That is because they work automatically. If we are perceiving the things around us then our senses are working properly and according to their purpose. To take your statement to its logical conclusion, if I am on a dessert island alone then I am not conscious any longer. Remember consciousness is the faculty which perceives reality. If what I'm perceiving doesn't exist then I don't possess the faculty of consciousness. When I perceive a tree, there is no other evidence that it exists than the fact that I'm perceiving it. The fact is, when I'm alone, I'm consistently able to cross the street, choose food that is not poisonous, read a book, avoid dangers like wild dogs and rattle snakes and generally navigate my way through reality effectively. I don't need someone else to validate each and every perception for me.

Now the conceptual faculty is a very different story. That does work volitionally and is not infallible in the least which is why we need some kind of method to follow to keep our conclusions grounded in reality. That is the purpose of an objective theory of concepts, something that theists don't have and can't get from the Bible because it has nothing at all to say on the subject of concepts, how they are formed, validated, and how they are related to reality.

That will have to be it for now. I'll respond to your other points as I have time.

Robert

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 09:10 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Hi CJLR,

I'm going to respond to your points in a couple of posts rather than one huge wall of text and because my time to post is extremely limited due to work constraints.

I had written: None of us observe objects?

You replied: I can't recall objecting to that, actually...

I'm glad we agree on this. The Kantian notion that we do not perceive objects but only appearances is false. When we perceive a tree, we are perceiving an object not some appearance separate from it. We perceive objects by means of their appearance to our senses. If another being were perceiving the same tree with a radically different type of sense modality, such as echo location or radar, we would both be perceiving the same object, just in a different form.

But, that isn't what I meant. When we, as naive individuals, "observe" something, we can't know, a priori, how that relates to the observations of others, and we thus can't grant our own observation a privileged position, when it its manifestly obvious in myriad ways that our observation is imperfect.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had asked: The objects we observe are not what they are independent of our observing them?

You replied: It is of great utility to assume so, but relatively trivial to establish that they are not necessarily so.

It is unnecessary to assume this since it is directly observable. This is the law of identity and the principle of the primacy of existence, both of which are axiomatic. Things are what they are and do what they do independent of the conscious activity by which we perceive them. Axiomatic truths are outside the province of proof since their truth is implicit in any proof.

I note that you haven't addressed my counterexample. A hallucinating psychotic would claim that certain phenomena are directly observable, to use your phrase. Are they?

It is folly to the point of derangement to elevate a single perspective; this is the single most important lesson in all the history of science. A data point is useless. A data set is useful.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You had also replied: Can you convince a hallucinating psychotic that their perceptions are not valid? Notwithstanding what a trivial trick it is to fool our own senses; it is incredibly easy to cause oneself or others to observe objects which are entirely artifacts of perception...

It's odd that you would use a psychotic as an example. No I couldn't convince a psychotic of anything because by definition he is not in touch with reality. Yes our eyes can be fooled but the very fact that we can know this is a testament to the validity of the senses.

I'm glad you did get to addressing this. But I find the response a little odd; if you are claiming that the experiences of another are inaccurate because they are the minority, then that's recourse to popular opinion and nothing more. If your only answer is feels, then I'm afraid I find that terribly lacking.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  How would we know the difference between an optical illusion and reality if our senses were not valid?

Based solely on individual experience, we can't.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The fact that our senses have limitations is not a problem it is a precondition of their existence. All existents are finite and limited. They have a specific identity and only that identity. That is what makes them possible. To demand perfection of the senses is an irrational standard. The classic example of the stick appearing bent in water is a perfect example. If our senses are invalid how do we know that the stick is in water in the first place and how do you know the stick is actually straight?

Yes, but that's precisely the point I was making. Absent some degree of interaction with others, it's all meaningless. It's entirely irrelevant what might "exist" objectively, if we can't directly perceive it.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Also there is the fact that we have more than one sense. Vision is our primary sense but we have 4 others with which to check the validity of our vision. Our senses are self validating in a non-circular way.

We have a great deal more than 5 senses by any modern accounting, but they are all flawed. Because we're human, and our sensory apparatus evolved under certain limited conditions. Our perception is flawed, our memory is flawed, and our pattern recognition is flawed.

An education in science, and the philosophy of science, consists in telling us so. And telling us that only collectively can we even begin to hope to establish some sort of consistent understanding of external phenomena.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You also replied: After all, a single observer's perceptions are meaningless - there's no possible means to assess their validity, even assuming (quite reasonably) that they might be valid or invalid in the first place. Only collectively and in aggregate can we draw some informed conclusions about what might be said to exist, and how we relate to it.

Again, there is nothing we need do volitionally to validate our perceptions. That is because they work automatically. If we are perceiving the things around us then our senses are working properly and according to their purpose. To take your statement to its logical conclusion, if I am on a dessert island alone then I am not conscious any longer. Remember consciousness is the faculty which perceives reality.

I disagree. Consciousness need not be restricted to sensory inputs which correspond to collective consensus; this is trivially so.

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If what I'm perceiving doesn't exist then I don't possess the faculty of consciousness.

The mentally ill aren't conscious?

The mistaken aren't conscious?

A possible definition, to be sure, but an untenable one, it seems to me...

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  When I perceive a tree, there is no other evidence that it exists than the fact that I'm perceiving it. The fact is, when I'm alone, I'm consistently able to cross the street, choose food that is not poisonous, read a book, avoid dangers like wild dogs and rattle snakes and generally navigate my way through reality effectively. I don't need someone else to validate each and every perception for me.

Absent some assumption of external reality, and some assumption of meaningful communication of others, so what?

Lots of people disagree with you on any number of things, for all sorts of reasons. Who is to say you're any more right than them?

(20-02-2015 09:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Now the conceptual faculty is a very different story. That does work volitionally and is not infallible in the least which is why we need some kind of method to follow to keep our conclusions grounded in reality. That is the purpose of an objective theory of concepts, something that theists don't have and can't get from the Bible because it has nothing at all to say on the subject of concepts, how they are formed, validated, and how they are related to reality.

That will have to be it for now. I'll respond to your other points as I have time.

Robert

Except theists do have a concept of objectivity. It follows from their conception of God - and yes, it's entirely feels-based, but so is yours, according to what you've explained to me. And while I can certainly grant that certain feels-based arguments appeal to me more than others, there is no possible means for me to objectively test most of the fundamental precepts of various worldviews.

...

I would say, in conclusion, that there is a reason science is a collective methodology - and there is a reason why all good theories are not provable, but falsifiable. There is a profound difference.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
22-02-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(19-02-2015 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  "By their own description of God, it is un-observable, incorporeal, supernatural and therefore neither provable or dis-provable."

By WHOSE own description? Every Christian, sane or nutty, ever at TTA, says Jesus is God in corporeal FLESH.
Seriously? THIS is the best dodge you have? You just assert without evidence that Jesus is god made corporeal flesh, yet I can't make an appointment with him to see his flesh and verify his claims? You can't provide me with his physical snail-mail address or GPS coordinates or even his email address, I'll warrant.

And somehow just claiming that Jesus is flesh-and-blood takes him out of the realm of the supernatural?

Okay -- I claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made of actual pasta covered in actual olive oil and garlic. That makes him real, I guess. So bow before him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
Quote: I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true.
Why there is something rather than nothing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
@True Scotsman.
Just wondering, could you prove to me that you or I is not in a Total Recall scenario. By that I mean imagine if they develope video games to the point where it is totally immersive. How could you tell.

I like how this thread is slowly devolving to Descartes.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(22-02-2015 01:42 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @True Scotsman.
Just wondering, could you prove to me that you or I is not in a Total Recall scenario. By that I mean imagine if they develop video games to the point where it is totally immersive. How could you tell.

I like how this thread is slowly devolving to Descartes.

Dude.
It's the Matrix.

BTW, Brian Greene once said it's possible reality as we know it is a program running of the boundary of the universe. Drinking Beverage

(And BTW #2, keep your damn cold air up there please. Surely your Jesus would do that if you asked him ?)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: