Veritas?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: Veritas?
What a lovely thread this has turned out to be Unsure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 05:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 05:00 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Listened to video. Strawmans many positions. Factually inaccurate in many places. Total waste of time.

Empirical skepticism contains science, but is quite a bit wider.

But in any event, allow me to put the question to you directly. WHAT method are you using on the subject of God and/or other supernatural woo (belief in the Resurrection, etc), IS that a reliable method, and HOW can we tell that it is?

do not know what you are asking.

You said, and I quote,

(31-05-2014 11:50 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  if i want to learn about philosophy or metaphysics, i use a method in line with those subjects. if i want to know about morality i use a method in line with that subject. if i want to know about God i use a method in line with that subject.

So. You say you'd use a method in line with the subject of God to know about God... which suggests, since you seem to think you know the first thing about God (whether such a being exists), that you've actually used that method. What method is that? Is it a reliable method? How can we check that it is reliable? Or is there no basis for believing that is reliable, making any trust in that method groundless?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
31-05-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 05:36 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  What a lovely thread this has turned out to be Unsure

What were you expecting?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
31-05-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 05:47 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 05:36 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  What a lovely thread this has turned out to be Unsure

What were you expecting?
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbR_LM53dCc09wM24cQ_J...hCaT6OOVQA]

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 05:56 PM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 05:47 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 05:36 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  What a lovely thread this has turned out to be Unsure

What were you expecting?

No, this is about what I expected Dodgy

(30-05-2014 03:23 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  In fact, I cannot imagine how it is even possible to have an enlightening conversation with someone beginning with the question "what is truth". Hope to be proven wrong, but given the track record, not seeing it as likely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
31-05-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 05:56 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 05:47 PM)Anjele Wrote:  What were you expecting?

No, this is about what I expected Dodgy

(30-05-2014 03:23 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  In fact, I cannot imagine how it is even possible to have an enlightening conversation with someone beginning with the question "what is truth". Hope to be proven wrong, but given the track record, not seeing it as likely.

I may have misunderstood...I thought you were looking for a coherent conversation among Jermy and the other members.

Some of us got bored and switched gears.

As Charis so kindly pointed out...trying to have a decent conversation with Jermy is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Undecided

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
31-05-2014, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2014 06:57 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Veritas?
Hi again Jeremy,

I see that the thread has really taken off while I was at work. I hope you're still around and responding to posts. I hope also that you will read my entire post as you will find in it the answer to the question I posed and you evaded as you had no other choice but to evade it.

I wrote: Inductive reason works with sense perception. How can you use inductive reason to form the concept of the Christian god?

You wrote in response: you use it the same way you use it when making inferences about anything that is not immediately accessible by our senses.

scientists believe black holes exist. no scientist has ever seen a black hole directly however but believe they exist by observing the effects it produces in objects near its circumference.

they look at the data and then through inductive reasoning form hypotheses that attempt to explain the data available. the hypothesis that best explains the data is then tentatively called a theory.


Here's the crucial difference: No scientists would ever infer a supernatural cause from looking at nature. Yes they are biased against any concept of the supernatural and that is because they rigorously follow the laws of logic as they should since they care about coming to objectively true conclusions.

Scientists do form hypotheses and theories based on concepts inferred from other concepts but they leave a step by step logical trail that can be followed back to sensory percepts. If they don't then someone is going to call into question their conclusions and rightly so.

There is no way to logically infer a supernatural cause from looking at nature. Since existence exists independently from consciousness as the object of consciousness and not the subject of consciousness, that means we have to look outward at reality to gain knowledge of reality. When we look at nature we see nothing but natural causes. The only way to form a concept of the supernatural is to look inwards to your own consciousness and imagine it.

That is not objective reason. That is subjective reason. Scientists and rational thinkers recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the imagination and reality. Your god does not exist in reality but only in your mind and in the minds of every believer according to his own imagination. The only way we can see your god is by looking inward to our own imagination.

You wrote: our familiar five senses tell is that (sic) we live in a universe that is fine tuned for life. our senses tell us that the universe came into existence some fifteen billion years ago in an explosion from a super dense singularity. our senses tell us that we are creatures with a sense of right and wrong and of what ought or ought not to be. our senses tell us that throughout history people have had this queer sense that something above and beyond them existed "out there".

Our senses tell us no such thing. Our senses tell us that existence exists and that consciousness exists and reality exists independently from our consciousness as an absolute. The scientific method and the evidence tell us that the conditions for life exist only in a tiny thin layer around one planet (as far as we know). The scientific method and the evidence tell us that the conditions for life constantly changing and sometimes change such that almost all life gets wiped out of existence. In order to find out that our universe is billions of years old thousands of dedicated men and women had to use a rational process in which every decimal point matters and they had to follow logic scrupulously and check and re-check their findings because they stake their life's work on them. In order to infer a supernatural designer who created the universe by an act of conscious will all you had to do was look inwards to your own consciousness and imagine it. Christian apologists stand at the podium and hold up their fantasies and demand that we give them equal time. Bullshit.

When we look out at reality we see that existence exists independently of consciousness as the object of consciousness and not as the subject of consciousness. We see that to exist is to be something as opposed to nothing and to exists is to posses a specific, finite nature. A is A. An entity is itself and nothing else. When we look out at reality we see that these things exist and that we know it. Consciousness is consciousness of some thing, of objects or entities. Consciousness presupposes existence. When we look out at reality we see that the relationship between consciousness and its objects is contextually static and is uni-directional. When we look out at reality we see that consciousness, any consciousness, must conform to its objects and not the other way around because A is A and things are what they are independent from consciousness, any consciousness.

All of these principles are irreducible primaries. They do not rest on any antecedent principles. The corollary to these axioms, itself an axiom, is the principle that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, That things are what they are independent of anyone's wishes, faith, feelings, hopes, likes, dislikes or tantrums.

All four of these axioms are perceptually self evident. Anyone can discover them for themselves by looking out at reality. Together they form the rational basis for the discovery of the objective truth. They are at the base of all knowledge and of a rational epistemology. They are inescapable. They are implied in every conscious action you take. The very act of making any knowledge claim performatively affirms them including the act of claiming a claim that performatively denies them such as your god claim.

Now do you see why I said that you would have to go outside of your Christian worldview in order to answer the question "what is objective truth and how can we discover what is objectively true", a question which I note you completely ignored.

All the principles that I laid out above and that you are counting on implicitly to be true while not naming them in order to try to prove that your god claim, which perfomatively denies all four of them, is objectively true are not to be found anywhere in your Christian worldview. They are stolen from my philosophy, used and then abandoned.

So it is time for you to answer your own question Jeremy. You said you think that the truth is of "paramount" importance to you. If your worldview offers nothing what so ever as a guide to a rational method for discovering objective truth and in fact offers the opposite method, pretending to know things you don't know also known as faith, causing you to have to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept to try and prove your god claim, shouldn't you renounce it if you really care about the truth.

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
[+] 5 users Like true scotsman's post
31-05-2014, 09:36 PM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 06:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Hi again Jeremy, ...

Our senses tell us no such thing. Our senses tell us that existence exists and that consciousness exists and reality exists independently from our consciousness as an absolute. The scientific method and the evidence tell us that the conditions for life exist only in a tiny thin layer around one planet (as far as we know). The scientific method and the evidence tell us that the conditions for life constantly changing and sometimes change such that almost all life gets wiped out of existence. In order to find out that our universe is billions of years old thousands of dedicated men and women had to use a rational process in which every decimal point matters and they had to follow logic scrupulously and check and re-check their findings because they stake their life's work on them. In order to infer a supernatural designer who created the universe by an act of conscious will all you had to do was look inwards to your own consciousness and imagine it. Christian apologists stand at the podium and hold up their fantasies and demand that we give them equal time....

I pointed that out and got insulted for my troubles.

Still awaiting an apology...

Much cheers to all. Jeremy Walker can suck on any expletive of their choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Peebothuhul's post
01-06-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 09:59 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 09:10 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Hard to see your own psychoses through your huge walls of denial.

This is my primary care physician's view, I happen to agree.

Soooooooooooo the question came up with him/her, which tells us all something.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Veritas?
(31-05-2014 10:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 10:24 AM)War Horse Wrote:  Rolling on the floor here..... this means that you actually asked that specific question of the doctor....... Laugh out load good show old chap, at least it shows that you know you have a problem. Its a start. Yes

Now , to get a proper diagnoses, you will need to see a psychiatrist, not a general primary care doctor/PA. Wink

The above is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because my doctor told me I have none of the symptoms associated with psychosis, that therefore I asked him if I had symptoms associated with psychosis.

In addition, I have no reason to see a psychiatrist. My doctor has no reason whatsoever to think I need to see one nor do I or anyone else I spend a significant time with have any reason to think I need to see one.

Does it follow that therefore I am not psychotic. By no means. I could be and they could all just have happened to not notice. But this would be highly unlikely. Everyone here could be psychotic and live without the symptoms being detected but again this is not likely the case.

So your fallacious appeal to the authority of your doctor is meaningless.




Quote:
Nor is this thread about psychosis but rather , veritas.

Apparently your doctor hasn't seen your little crusade here.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: