let me put it in bold for you
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
and lets put this in bold for you, as your just dont get it. Skinwalker:
"You have yet to show what I asked. Your quote above only demonstrates knowledge gained through the physical world -the natural universe. Whether it be direct or indirect. That doesn't even rate a "nice try."
"You have yet to show what I asked. Your quote above only demonstrates knowledge gained through the physical world -the natural universe. Whether it be direct or indirect. That doesn't even rate a "nice try."
understandable, since you,as an atheist, don't regard god or god's representative as apta-vakyaand lets put this in bold for you, as your just dont get it. Skinwalker:
"You have yet to show what I asked. Your quote above only demonstrates knowledge gained through the physical world -the natural universe. Whether it be direct or indirect. That doesn't even rate a "nice try."
ironically, as an advocate of empiricism, you encounter the same issue.
The mind, having no self-informing capacity, is misinformed by the imperfect senses. Illusioned by uncertain sense data, the mind makes mistakes. When in spite of this, we stubbornly think we've gained indubitable knowledge, we are cheated. For example, suppose you and I agree, on the basis of perception and logic, that 'one plus one is two' is an undisputed fact. We form a school of philosophy, the Too True To Two school. We challenge any other school to come forward and prove that "one plus one is two" is not certain. The losers have to give the winners all the money in their wallets except one banknote. A member of the One On One Won school takes up the bet. He places one drop of water on a flat glass surface with an eyedropper, then carefully adds a second drop to it. The result, to our chagrined surprise, is not two drops. We lose, cheated by our own minds and senses. After giving away the money, I have one dollar in my wallet. You have a ten dollar bill in yours. Pooling our funds, we fall into a grave philosophical contradiction. My senses tell me we now have two notes, but your mind tells you we have eleven dollars. We quarrel. I shout, 'Believe your eyes! Two!' You shout back, 'Believe your mind! Eleven!' Condemning one another, we dissolve our school.
The dispute over the two bills is not just comedy relief for readers weary of epistemology. Friction between rationalists (who believe their minds, i.e. logic) and empiricists (who believe their eyes, i.e. the senses) has been a flashpoint of regular philosophical controversy since classical times. Like unsupervised children, pratyaksa and anumana quarrel whenever the authoritative parent pramana, Vedic sabda, is absent. At the moment, anumana has more weight in science than pratyaksa. But as with all trends of history, this will not last. Stephen Hawking has this to say about the future of modern, non-Vedic anumana: 'One theory builds upon another. We can't escape the suspicion that we may be constructing a very ephemeral house of cards.' (Ferguson, 1994:65)
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/3_2/3_2suhotraswami.html[2].....Don't scientists have more reasonable arguments that establish logic as authoritative proof? Stephen Hawking says that quantum theory is about 'what we do not know and cannot predict'. (Ferguson, 1994:21) Ferguson furthermore notes, 'It is generally agreed that in science nothing can ever be "proved".' (Ferguson, 1994:26) About what he called 'knowledge concerning the universe as a whole',' the great philosopher-scientist Bertrand Russell (1912:82) wrote, 'the proposed proofs that, in virtue of the laws of logic such and such things must exist and such and such others cannot, are not capable of surviving a critical scrutiny.' Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why? The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. 'The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved.' (Ferguson, 1994:26) This principle forms the basis of modern scientific knowledge. This same principle, ironically, is considered a fallacy in classical philosophy: argumentum ad ignorantium, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.
Last edited:
Yet rationalism and empricism are verifiable in at least one way. The teachings and authority of the Vedas, however, are not verifiable. Does not this make the Vedic viewpoint inferior?
However, it is good to point out how science is premising itself more and more on fallacious lines of thought that trivializes itself.
However, it is good to point out how science is premising itself more and more on fallacious lines of thought that trivializes itself.
Qwerty Mob:
I make no claims about the teapots around Mars. However, as one cannot know that they either exist or not exist, we are all forced to accept an agnostic position about them.
I make no claims about the teapots around Mars. However, as one cannot know that they either exist or not exist, we are all forced to accept an agnostic position about them.
It very instructive that you guys think the odds are greater that a celestial teapot is orbiting around Mars than that the Bible is accurate history, oh the desparation of the God haters.
One does not hate that which don't exist! It's plainly silly. What I do hate is the atrocities brought to mankind in the name of god, the stagnation of humanity brought in the name of religion, the utter blindness devotion of faith, to destroy everything on it's path, that does not agree with their ideology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn9u8MgHQDs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn9u8MgHQDs&mode=related&search=
America is a Constitutional Republic, and Focus on the Family hasn't declared a jihad on Muslims the last time I checked.
Qwerty Mob:
I make no claims about the teapots around Mars. However, as one cannot know that they either exist or not exist, we are all forced to accept an agnostic position about them.
No, you're (1) completely abandoning a point which is central to modern agnosticism, that one proportions their belief to the evidence (-Hume), and (2) confabulating "the implausible" and "the impossible" (or incoherent, if you prefer).
I think you'll find you're committing Petitio Principii by suggesting others must adopt a position of agnosticism on a far-fetched notion which you insist you've made no claims about.
And that is why "strong agnosticism" is a laughable nonsequitur.
...
There is no position which a strong agnostic can adopt on the limits of knowledge which does not also demolish their very tenets.
Trite cliches such as "Nothing is Certain" have become cannonical in the minds of great wafflers, because no effort is made to distinguish between principle and application.
In the very least, the tired "tea pot" analogy does not apply, unless you are going to support it, or defend it.
Greetings
They warning is not to rebuke a fool....for he will hate you.....
Not to throw pearls of wisdom to the swine, for they will turn and rend you.
Jesus did not want some to see, or hear the Words of Life,
Lest they see with their eyes, hears with their ears, and be converted in their heart.....and He would have to heal them.
Thats why He spoke in parable to the masses....
Some are reserved in chains of darkness, not to be released.
You asked.
Yes, and where did you begin to answer?
Qwerty Mob:
Proportioning one's belief to the evidence is not epistemologically justified to be called knowledge, which is justified true belief. Holding any viewpoint on teapots around Mars is unjustified.
You will agree that there is nothing logically incoherent in the orbiting of Mars by a teapot, yes? That is to say, a teapot could theoretically be set in motion to revolve around Mars, yes, without a violation of any law of logic?
And you admit that if certain properties of the teapot were given, such as invisibility and the like, that it would be more difficult to check?
And that even if such were not the case, that we'd most likely not know if it is true or not?
And that there is no a priori way to discuss teapots rotating around Mars? Thus leaving us with no analytic method of determining their existence or non-existence around Mars?
If so, then you must affirm the agnostic principle, as there is no certainy in either case. It could happen, it probably has -not-, and one cannot claim it -has-, but rather must one claim utter ignorance (and likely apathy) about the matter.
It's a matter of epistemology as it relates to empirical claims.
No, you're (1) completely abandoning a point which is central to modern agnosticism, that one proportions their belief to the evidence (-Hume), and (2) confabulating "the implausible" and "the impossible" (or incoherent, if you prefer).
Proportioning one's belief to the evidence is not epistemologically justified to be called knowledge, which is justified true belief. Holding any viewpoint on teapots around Mars is unjustified.
I think you'll find you're committing Petitio Principii by suggesting others must adopt a position of agnosticism on a far-fetched notion which you insist you've made no claims about.
You will agree that there is nothing logically incoherent in the orbiting of Mars by a teapot, yes? That is to say, a teapot could theoretically be set in motion to revolve around Mars, yes, without a violation of any law of logic?
And you admit that if certain properties of the teapot were given, such as invisibility and the like, that it would be more difficult to check?
And that even if such were not the case, that we'd most likely not know if it is true or not?
And that there is no a priori way to discuss teapots rotating around Mars? Thus leaving us with no analytic method of determining their existence or non-existence around Mars?
If so, then you must affirm the agnostic principle, as there is no certainy in either case. It could happen, it probably has -not-, and one cannot claim it -has-, but rather must one claim utter ignorance (and likely apathy) about the matter.
Trite cliches such as "Nothing is Certain" have become cannonical in the minds of great wafflers, because no effort is made to distinguish between principle and application.
It's a matter of epistemology as it relates to empirical claims.
The existence of what you call supernatural.....is just as real as the atom or bacteria.
You can't see it with your natural senses....and that relegates it to the realm of the supernatural to you.
But the dimension where other worlds exist now and people walk on fields of grass, right where you are standing.....is just as real as you are.
Only you can't see them with your natural eyes.
It is entirely impossible to argue ones delusions. But, by your very own statement, you've successfully contradicted yourself:
"Science will discover it some day."
Clarify, because you just set up conditions for which you argue favorably against. If you agree that the "tea pot" analogy is irrelevant, why waste your time speculating, since the evidence for one is lacking?Qwerty Mob:
Proportioning one's belief to the evidence is not epistemologically justified to be called knowledge, which is justified true belief. Holding any viewpoint on teapots around Mars is unjustified.
You will agree that there is nothing logically incoherent in the orbiting of Mars by a teapot, yes? That is to say, a teapot could theoretically be set in motion to revolve around Mars, yes, without a violation of any law of logic?
And you admit that if certain properties of the teapot were given, such as invisibility and the like, that it would be more difficult to check?
And that even if such were not the case, that we'd most likely not know if it is true or not?
And that there is no a priori way to discuss teapots rotating around Mars? Thus leaving us with no analytic method of determining their existence or non-existence around Mars?
If so, then you must affirm the agnostic principle, as there is no certainy in either case. It could happen, it probably has -not-, and one cannot claim it -has-, but rather must one claim utter ignorance (and likely apathy) about the matter.
Incoherent, no, implausible, yes- and unless you plan on continuing to NOT support such a claim, the agnostic position isn't "we can't know-" it IS "what is the evidence?"
I invite you to strongly consider the difference between "principle" and "application" again.
It's a matter of epistemology as it relates to empirical claims.
You are "off the hook" on only one condition- that you've made no empirical claims.
It is also rather clear that you do not intend to.
...
And with regard to "implausible tea pots"- that is as it should be.
Greetings
And here-in lies the hub of most of your arguments, LG ...The word (sabda) is, in the first place, the Veda, the validity of which is self-authenticated. Some philosophers broaden the concept of sabda to include the statement of a reliable person (apta-vakya).
Sabda, from the description above, is a logical fallacy that you use over and over and over again.
The "statement of a reliable person" is an Appeal to Authority - nothing more, nothing less.
Just because a "reliable person" says it does NOT make anything truthful.
Likewise, by merely saying that the validity of the Veda is "self-authenticated" does NOT make it so.
It needs to be demonstrated with actual evidence.
Otherwise it is nothing but a belief without evidence - pure faith - passed down through the ages with a growing collection of unsubstantiated myth and dust surrounding it.
And here-in lies the hub of most of your arguments, LG ...
Sabda, from the description above, is a logical fallacy that you use over and over and over again.
The "statement of a reliable person" is an Appeal to Authority - nothing more, nothing less.
Just because a "reliable person" says it does NOT make anything truthful.
Likewise, by merely saying that the validity of the Veda is "self-authenticated" does NOT make it so.
It needs to be demonstrated with actual evidence.
Otherwise it is nothing but a belief without evidence - pure faith - passed down through the ages with a growing collection of unsubstantiated myth and dust surrounding it.
which brings us to the delightful analogy of the high school drop out in the association of a physicist in regards to the electron - as far as the high school drop out is concerned, the only way he can accept the notion of the electron is if he can accept that the physicist and physics are self authenticated (of course the body of knowledge behind physics has come about through a combination of empiricism and rationalism, but as far as the high school drop out is concerned, his efforts of empiricism and rationalism are not sufficient, hence he doesn't qualify for direct perception).
what makes a reliable authority reliable is that following what they advocate delivers the desired result (by following an authentic doctor you get cured of sickness, despite not being the least bit familiar with medicine, by following an authentic teacher you come to the platform of knowledge that they are familiar with etc etc)
Yet rationalism and empricism are verifiable in at least one way. The teachings and authority of the Vedas, however, are not verifiable. Does not this make the Vedic viewpoint inferior?
However, it is good to point out how science is premising itself more and more on fallacious lines of thought that trivializes itself.
mentioned at the end of the article referenced
Unfortunately, modern intellectuals equate Vedic sabda-pramana with the sort of ipse dixit authority that Descartes rejected. And so, despite their doubts, anumana remains the favoured pramana, though it is ever uncertain. But there are three simple, standard rules of semantics (the study of linguistic communication) that, if put into practice, demonstrate the difference between sabda and ipse dixit statements, and establish sabda as authoritative. If I want to know whether a statement has real authority, I must:
1. know what the statement means
2. know the right way to verify it
3. have good evidence for believing it (Wilson, 1960:76)
Firstly, knowing what a statement means requires me to accept an appropriate discipline of thought. For instance, I cannot know what 'nondeterministic, polynomial-time-complete' refers to through the disciplines of basket weaving, literary criticism or phrenology. The appropriate discipline is combinatorics, the study of complex logical problems. Similarly, if I want to know what the statement 'sabda is the sound incarnation of Krsna' means, I have to accept the system of discipline (parampara) through which sabda is handed down.
Secondly, I verify the statement 'sabda is the sound incarnation of Krsna' by consulting the three parampara sources of sabda: guru, sastra and sadhu. If I read this statement in sastra, I consult guru and sadhu for verification. If I hear it from guru, it is verified by sastra and sadhu; and if I hear it from sadhu, it is verified by sastra and guru.
Thirdly, there is very good evidence for believing the statement 'sabda is the sound incarnation of Krsna'. One who makes the senses and mind his authorities is bound by them, and is thus bound by ignorance of the self. In other living creatures such ignorance of the self is natural; but in man it is a vice that results in vice. The sound of Ipse dixit does not have the potency to free the self from the vicious demands of the mind and senses. Hearing it, a man remains like an animal, his life's goals no higher than eating, sleeping, sex and self-defence. Sabda that is understood and verified following the two previous rules, transforms the hearer in a way that ipse dixit does not. As Srila Prabhupada writes in Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 'Perfect knowledge, received from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the path of liberation.' (Bhaktivedanta, 1983:266) Liberation of consciousness from the dictation of the mind and senses, and from ignorance and vice, is self-evident in the devotees who take to the path. And when a devotee comes to the end this path of liberation, of hearing Vedic sabda, Krsna personally reveals Himself as Absolute Knowledge, the Absolute Knower and the Absolute Object of Knowledge. This state of full realisation of the truth is called Krsna consciousness.
here we go again with the same crap analogy. the high school dropout, can be sure that the physicist could produce credentials to show his knowledge, and therefore the high school dropout, can accept the knowledge of the physicist, as worthy of adoration.which brings us to the delightful analogy of the high school drop out in the association of a physicist in regards to the electron - as far as the high school drop out is concerned, the only way he can accept the notion of the electron is if he can accept that the physicist and physics are self authenticated (of course the body of knowledge behind physics has come about through a combination of empiricism and rationalism, but as far as the high school drop out is concerned, his efforts of empiricism and rationalism are not sufficient, hence he doesn't qualify for direct perception).
but you have yet to establish that a saintly person is either blessed, or reliable authority, or worthy of adoration, or even had a direct perception, proof that they are associated with a divine power; sacred.
but we all know how long it takes to get a decree in a given subject, how long it take to become learned, through tried and tested means, whether or not the high school dropout understands what a electron is, is irrelevent, because he know the physicist does.
Qwerty Mob:
I am only stressing a point of epistemology, that is all. It is utterly irrelevant - truly, no man is anything but utterly disiniterested in whether or not teapots go around Mars - but it is something we must accept as a possibility if we are philosophically unbiased.
Basically, yes: Incoherent but not implausible.
But I would argue the agnostic position cannot simply be "what is the evidence" if by that you mean "what is the evidence for?", but "what is the evidence" only if you mean "what is the evidence for or against and can this be judged to be known beyond epistemological justification"?
True, because it is simply ridiculous to claim teapots go around Mars.
Sarkus:
When you get a chance, check my last post for a reply I made to your former one. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Clarify, because you just set up conditions for which you argue favorably against. If you agree that the "tea pot" analogy is irrelevant, why waste your time speculating, since the evidence for one is lacking?
I am only stressing a point of epistemology, that is all. It is utterly irrelevant - truly, no man is anything but utterly disiniterested in whether or not teapots go around Mars - but it is something we must accept as a possibility if we are philosophically unbiased.
Incoherent, no, implausible, yes- and unless you plan on continuing to NOT support such a claim, the agnostic position isn't "we can't know-" it IS "what is the evidence?"
Basically, yes: Incoherent but not implausible.
But I would argue the agnostic position cannot simply be "what is the evidence" if by that you mean "what is the evidence for?", but "what is the evidence" only if you mean "what is the evidence for or against and can this be judged to be known beyond epistemological justification"?
You are "off the hook" on only one condition- that you've made no empirical claims.
It is also rather clear that you do not intend to.
True, because it is simply ridiculous to claim teapots go around Mars.
Sarkus:
When you get a chance, check my last post for a reply I made to your former one. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
LightGigantic:
So basically, you affirm that the verification of the Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, and other sources of authority in your religious tradition, comes from mystic experience in direct perception of God following discipleship?
So basically, you affirm that the verification of the Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, and other sources of authority in your religious tradition, comes from mystic experience in direct perception of God following discipleship?
here we go again with the same crap analogy. the high school dropout, can be sure that the physicist could produce credentials to show his knowledge, and therefore the high school dropout, can accept the knowledge of the physicist, as worthy of adoration.
but you have yet to establish that a saintly person is either blessed, or reliable authority, or worthy of adoration, or even had a direct perception, proof that they are associated with a divine power; sacred.
but we all know how long it takes to get a decree in a given subject, how long it take to become learned, through tried and tested means, whether or not the high school dropout understands what a electron is, is irrelevent, because he know the physicist does.
the whole point about using the eg of a high school drop out is that they are not in a position to verify the claims of the physicist - in such a circumstance, what grounds does the high school dropout have to accept (or reject) the claims of the physicist or the credentials of the physicist?
Of course it is often replied that the high school drop out could get an education or a foundation of theoretical knowledge to become familiar enough with what the physicist is on about, but then we would be no longer talking about a high school drop out, per se.
Similarly if we were talking about why an atheist is not capable of perceiving the nature of god, and if an atheist was prepared to undergo the tutelage of a saintly person, we would no longer be discussing the issues of an atheist.