The truth is that empiricists are in ignorance.

[lightgigantic]

So because atheists are not conceited in saying they do not have all the answers, they are fools?

No
they are fools if they hold empiricism as the final word in discerning truth

What is your solution to this?

to treat empiricism with the respect that is empiricism is worth - its fine to help you cross the street, or even build a house, but if you want to use it to determine the validity of god, you are calling a bluff

To invent baseless fantasy to fill the gaps, like you have? To be skeptical of something unproven is not a belief.

if you read the OP, you would see this is the precise situation of empiricism when it is called on in regard to god

I think the foolish ones here are the people who make metaphysical claims and not understand the likelihood of them being false.

erm - thats the precise point of the OP - empiricism doesn't know this likelihood either and thus instantly acquires the aroma of foolishness

If I am wrong to be an atheist, then I am eager to be proven wrong.

just say "There is no God - empiricism proves it" or treat the words "empirical" and "reality" as synonynous

I am not arguing a position because I don't want there to be a god - rather, I am arguing against it because people can not go around making metaphysical claims based on their own imagination and expect to be respected for it.

the claim that the world is objective and the claim that this world can be revealed by the senses is also a metaphysical claim
:shrug:

 

[KennyJC]

LG: I understand all that... fairies could be real even if science can't prove it, yada yada. But I have no need to believe in Astrology, or what kind of life 'god' wants me to live. The fact that there is also no reason to believe this is true is the compounding factor.

In the absence of empiricism, you can only really give odds, and what are the odds you can invent something from imagination and have it be true?

 

[heliocentric]

Ok but don't pretend that the problem with ghosts/afterlife/gods is the sceptics refusal to clearly outline the required evidence and not that the evidence presented so far is somewhere between weak and non-existent. That sounds like a dodge or an attempt to shift some burden of proof to me heliocentric.

Im just engaging inabit of epistemology if anything, im not trying to be tricky. Its just about readressing the whole nature of evidence and 'adequate proofs' from the ground up.
Otherwise we do have this problem of looking for something when we're not entirely sure what exactly it is we're looking for (empirically speaking).

I dont 'need' for an afterlife or a god to exist, i dont particularly believe in either truth be told.
What i do need however is for stauch empiricists and vocal naysayers of such things to state their required criteria of what would constitute adequate proof for them.
If any sort of criteria isnt outlined then it starts to look like the omission exists because the proof required to change their minds and alter their beliefs just doesnt exist.
Which is where i get very suspicious over whether we're dealing with empiricism atall or whether we're actually dealing with people's closely-held sensibilities.

Were any great scientific discoveries held back because people refused to state the criteria for the evidence? (I am genuinely asking)

Im not sure, i guess im just skeptical of the whole 'we'll know the evidence when we see it' way of working that science still seems to hap-hazardly opperate within.

 

[mustafhakofi]

BTW, did I mention that I'm a convert now?

have you been to see snakelord, he deals with bipolar disorder daily, but never mind you'll soon feel better.
it can be cured, but it's a long road.

 

[s0meguy]

No
they are fools if they hold empiricism as the final word in discerning truth

Yeah, instead you should fill in everything you don't know with "god"

I never said this, your atheistic faith must be blinding you again

1) Atheists lack faith 2) I'm agnostic (it says so at my title) 3) your faith is the blinding one because you accept beliefs without any solid evidence

, rather I stated that an absence of evidence when there shouldn't be evidence present doesn't indicate anything...

It indicates a lot about the belief itself and the person that believes in it. It indicates that the belief is a superstitious one. Your beliefs that have no evidence are equal to someone elses belief that tiny monkeys live up your ass too tiny for us to perceive. Both can't be verified.

great job, next time try to read my statements instead of giving me the typical atheistic response when anyone points out the argument from ignorance...."oh so you're saying no evidence means something is true...checkmate!!" no one's saying that, rather I'm saying just what I said, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.....

If you're a theist you have beliefs that have no evidence.

 

[VitalOne]

1) Atheists lack faith 2) I'm agnostic (it says so at my title) 3) your faith is the blinding one because you accept beliefs without any solid evidence

ROFL...the typical atheistic argument "even though we have belief without evidence that there is no God its still not some how faith (belief without evidence)" the only ones that really don't have faith are agnostics...

It indicates a lot about the belief itself and the person that believes in it. It indicates that the belief is a superstitious one. Your beliefs that have no evidence are equal to someone elses belief that tiny monkeys live up your ass too tiny for us to perceive. Both can't be verified.

Uhm...you're changing the subject completely (must be trying to save face)...logically speaking absence of evidence when there shouldn't be any evidence present indicates nothing, just as I stated, for instance if I tell you my keys are at my house then you look in my car and you say "there's no keys in your car, they must not be in your house either" it doesn't make any sense because an absence of evidence (the keys not being in the car) when there shouldn't be evidence present (the keys in the car) doesn't indicate anything...

If you're a theist you have beliefs that have no evidence.

Same with atheists...they also belief without evidence that there is no God, no karma, no afterlife, no heaven, no hell, etc...using nothing more than personal incredulity ("oh it just sounds false...its sounds like a fantasy...it just can't be true"), belief without evidence, the argument from ignorance, and many other illogical arguments...(though these foolish atheists really think they're being rational ROFL!!!)

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
yet the empiricists foolishly says "see there's no evidence, so that must mean there is no soul or God,
”
Don't be such an idiot - they say no such thing.

the OP deals with two classic examples from contemporary academia

Surely you have read enough here to have seen the frequently repeated phrase - absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Please pay attention.

Wanna quote any of the seasoned skeptics here who say this?

using the words "fantasy" "delusional" "imagination" in connection to theistic claims are more frequently repeated

S0me guy

Everything that has no evidence is true. Can anybody refute this?

from the platform of empiricism its certainly difficult

And no we don't know for sure whether what we perceive is true but all we can do really is find out things using our senses.

if one accepts empiricism as the ultimate authority for discerning truth, so it seems

You theists on the other hand just make something up and then claim that its true because it can't be refuted.

In light of the OP - particularly regarding Ayer - do you want to explain how you know that theists are making things up?

Supe

So, the way I understand it is this:

Since there are things we don't yet know about the universe, and we can never hope to prove or disprove the existence of a god scientifically, the following must be true:

if you use empiricism as an ultimate authority on determining the truth of the universe, you feel that is okay?

1) There is definitely a god, without doubt.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

2) Theists (especially trained ones) with visions are truly percieving god and are above reproach.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

3) Materialistic science is the worst, most feeble attempt to gain insight into the universe.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

4) "Truth" is only to be found through introspection.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

5) Subjective reality is better (truer), in every way, than "objective" reality.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

6) In fact, there is probably no such thing as objective reality.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

7) There is no honor or sense whatsoever in looking for empirical evidence or proof of things.

no - but if you hold empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

8) Everything science has ever said or done is an illusion and not worth it's weight in bat guano.

no - but if you hold empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

9) Theists should be trusted an consulted for consensus truth on the way things really are.

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

What other obvious points have I forgotten?

I would have thought the OP was clear, but if you feel we still need to clarify a few points I am happy to do so

as for your other post, I think Vital covered the most essential points, although I would like to add as food for thought


Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.

perhaps I should be discussing wheel balance quotes or Star Trek

:shrug:

Yeah, instead you should fill in everything you don't know with "god"

you miss the point of the OP

empiricism has no capacity to make value judgments about reality - in other word if you are hanging on to the notion that god doesn't (or "probably doesn't) exist (or readily use words like "deluded" etc in connection with theistic claims) on the strength of empiricism, that is your belief

In other words your whole arguments suffers from critical reflexivity

ie saying "theists simply have a belief" on the strength of empiricism is also a belief

 

[superluminal]

if you use empiricism as an ultimate authority on determining the truth of the universe, you feel that is okay?

Listen. Seriously. You can form ideas and whatnot all you want. But the ultimate arbiter of any level of truth regarding anything that exists or occurrs outside the mind must be empiricism. That which is formed in the mind and is never tested against objective reality may be well and good for an individual, but it has no practical effect on the "real" world. Right?

with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know

x10

Correct. But with philosophical mysticism, you can never know x 1x10[sup]6[/sup]

perhaps I should be discussing wheel balance quotes or Star Trek

Perhaps.

A serious question that I've never gotten a good answer for:

How do you (or anyone) justify a truth derived solely from introspection? The only example I can readily think of is "abstract mathematical truth" which is the limited truth that lives only within a self consistent set of arbitrary rules.

When coming to the truth of god, via philosophical introspection, do you all claim it's anything other (ultimately) than a subjective opinion that may or may not benefit you personnally in some way?

Really. If not, then by what rationale do you claim that this philosophical "awakening" represents an aspect of reality?

 

[grover]

A serious question that I've never gotten a good answer for:

How do you (or anyone) justify a truth derived solely from introspection? The only example I can readily think of is "abstract mathematical truth" which is the limited truth that lives only within a self consistent set of arbitrary rules


When coming to the truth of god, via philosophical introspection, do you all claim it's anything other (ultimately) than a subjective opinion that may or may not benefit you personnally in some way?

Really. If not, then by what rationale do you claim that this philosophical "awakening" represents an aspect of reality?

Here's the thing the thing: with science or math who is it that is the authority on what is true or not? It is actually you. The whole point of science is that you can verify for yourself whether what is claimed is true or not. The only difference between scientific knowledge and mystical knowledge is that in one instance the truths exist outside of our minds in the physical world and what can be observed(which is why they can be objectively demonstrated) whereas in the other instance the truths have to do with what can be known from observing the mind itself(which can't be objectively demonstrated for obvious reasons). But, in both instances the ultimate authority on what is true is the individual. Any individual can go back and do a science experiment and verify for themself the truth of what has been claimed, and it is exactly so with mysticism: anyone can verify for themselves the truths that are claimed. In both instances the authority on what is known is the subject, they need no external authority: that is the entire point of both enterprises.

Furthermore, as I've previously stated: physical science knows nothing of mind. There is nothing about looking at a physical brain that could lead one to believe that it produces mental phenomenon. The only way we know about mind is because we all experience this for ourselves by direct experience. This is a very simple example of the limits of science and the value of direct experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

LG: I understand all that... fairies could be real even if science can't prove it, yada yada. But I have no need to believe in Astrology, or what kind of life 'god' wants me to live. The fact that there is also no reason to believe this is true is the compounding factor.

It appears that you don't understand what you are talking about
You open up by saying you understand that empiricism cannot deliver "facts" or "proofs" and conclude by saying "the fact that there is no" .....
:shrug:

In the absence of empiricism, you can only really give odds, and what are the odds you can invent something from imagination and have it be true?

I don't think you read the OP

In the presence of empiricism you can only give odds
("I have seen 10 000 black ravens therefore 10 000 of those 10 000 ravens are black" is truth. saying "anyone who has seen a white raven is deluded" is delusional, since you have only seen 10 000 black ones)

In the absence of empiricism you need another platform to discern truth (perhaps what you are trying to suggest is "rationalism" as an alternative)

 

[scorpius]

...
science does not know how we learn and remember, nor how we think and communicate, nor how the brain stores information, nor what the relationship between language and thought is.Science does not know how living cells interact with nonliving matter.

learning is an ongoing proccess,in time we will know

It does not know what the origin of the universe is, nor how old the universe is, nor what the universe is made of, nor what the ultimate fate of the universe will be.

loaded question,NO one knows this.
and totaly irrelevant to the god discussion

Empiricists only truthfully speak of what they believe they perceive and thus what they believe they know.

and still our senses are the only reliable way to gain knowledge and information
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
do you know ANOTHER WAY perhaps???

They are not in any position to be judgemental about other beliefs for instance, the belief in God and the survival of the soul beyond death.

actualy they are,
IF our senses dont detect gods or souls we can be damn sure those things aint real.

Now, science cannot test a believer's claim that God exists.

it doesnt have to,
its up to a THEIST to prove god.
to a scientist ,,,god is irelevant!

Therefore science will never prove that God is false.

no.. its up to philosophers to debate,
stop beating the dead horse over and over, soon as you DEFINE god atheists will disprove it,
you cant defeat REASON.

But neither will a believer be able to prove that God is true,

so whats the point of talking about it??

for according to Popper there is no way to prove any truth.

from now on instead of saying dumb as a stump,
we should start using "dumb as Popper"

So while God may exist in some way, He does not exist scientifically, hence science need not be bothered.

in WHAT way might this god exist
IF we cannot observe it,detect it or measure it in ANY way????

 

[S.A.M.]

Do you even know Popper?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

 

[SkinWalker]

Vitalone,

Don't be such an idiot - they say no such thing.

.you're the one being an idiot...I'm the one who has to frequently point out to them the argument from ignorance or that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...

Gentlemen: can we please have a discussion without resorting to the use of "idiot?"

VO has made the assertion that there are atheists who have said "since there is no evidence, this proves god does not exist."

The challenge is now to VO to cite the thread and post# or provide a link in this forum where that assertion has been made.

In addition, VO is constantly misrepresenting the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. In this fallacious assertion, VO is stating that atheists "argue from ignorance" that god does not exist since they "believe" god does not exist. This is utter nonsense and if such an argument were sound, then it would follow that it is an argument from ignorance that the pink elephant wearing a tutu in my closet doesn't exist since I believe it doesn't.

The fallacy resides in his assumption of how we believe, not in what we do or do not believe. Atheists believe that god doesn't exist because no good evidence has been demonstrated that suggests belief in god is necessary.

The argument from ignorance, more specifically, argumentum ad ignorantium is one that states something doesn't exist or couldn't have occurred because the arguer lacks the appropriate knowledge.

The human notion of gods are very explainable and, indeed, given what is currently understood of human psychology, neurology, and ethnography, they are predicted. Undoubtedly, some theistic apologist with a post-modernist and anti-science perspective will go on and on about how those that don't believe in his/her favorite god "don't have the appropriate knowledge" for [insert fallacious reason], but that explanation doesn't wash.

The argument from ignorance *does* work, however, with the lack of knowledge that devout believers seem to have with regard to scientific issues ranging from evolution to the motion of the planets. Since such knowledge is freely available and education is possible to even the daftest of these believers, it is readily apparent that they probably choose their ignorance over gaining a genuine and naturalistic understanding of the universe -preferring, instead, the unfounded and non-evidenced supernatural and magical explanations of fantasy and superstition.

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you use empiricism as an ultimate authority on determining the truth of the universe, you feel that is okay?
”
Listen. Seriously. You can form ideas and whatnot all you want. But the ultimate arbiter of any level of truth regarding anything that exists or occurrs outside the mind must be empiricism. That which is formed in the mind and is never tested against objective reality may be well and good for an individual, but it has no practical effect on the "real" world. Right?

so if you had 50 people sitting in desks and asked them to write down what they observed, you would have 50 identical answers?
(if you asked a class that, they would most likely respond "What do you want us to observe?")
in other words the very act of "testing" empiricism works with the mind, since it is about placing arbitrary, subjective concepts (phenomena) on an existing world (noumena)

these two foundations of empricism
1) the cause (noumena) is objective
2) the cause can be revealed through the senses (phenomena)

is precisely where all the trouble lies
(How can something that is phenomenal enter into something that is noumenal?)

“
with empiricism as an ultimate authority, you can never know
”
x10

Correct. But with philosophical mysticism, you can never know x 1x106

even if your statements were sound you would still be wrong.
Knowing that you don't know is a greater gain than thinking you know something when you actually don't

“

perhaps I should be discussing wheel balance quotes or Star Trek
”
Perhaps.

yoda vs Gandalf also appears popular

A serious question that I've never gotten a good answer for:

How do you (or anyone) justify a truth derived solely from introspection?

The only example I can readily think of is "abstract mathematical truth" which is the limited truth that lives only within a self consistent set of arbitrary rules.

The only example I can readily think of is "abstract mathematical truth" which is the limited truth that lives only within a self consistent set of arbitrary rules.

generally we rely on the senses (empiricism)
when we reach the limits of this, we speculate (rationalism)
here is an introduction to the whole dialouge of contention between empiricism and rationalism

Suppose you and I agree, on the basis of mathematical logic like that deemed indubitable by Descartes, that one plus one is two is a sure 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.

both rationalism (using the mind) and empiricism (using the senses) have problems

When coming to the truth of god, via philosophical introspection, do you all claim it's anything other (ultimately) than a subjective opinion that may or may not benefit you personnally in some way?

Really. If not, then by what rationale do you claim that this philosophical "awakening" represents an aspect of reality?

philosophical speculation (book knowledge) does not reveal god

BS 5.33 I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is inaccessible to the Vedas, but obtainable by pure unalloyed devotion of the soul, who is without a second

so why bother with the vedas (book knowledge) huh?

our understanding is intimately connected with our activities, and our activities are intimately connected with our value systems (beliefs/reason/etc) - in other words we don't do anything unless we see a reason to do it, and what we do determines how we understand things.

So basically the process of revealing god works like this

1) one must have a favourable loving mood towards him
2) to do that one must have progressive consciousness (ie cultivate good qualities (eg compassion, humilty, etc in a mood of service towards god) as opposed to cultivating bad qualities (eg cultivating lust/wrath, etc in the pursuit of material sense pleasure)
3) to do that one must have access to information (ie Book Knowledge) on how this is possible
4) to access that knowledge one must see a reason to do so
5) finding out a reason to do something is the result of philosophical contemplation (book knowledge again)

in otherwords, there are 5 successive obstacles to the perception of god

1) no philosophical impetus (finding "better" reasons to do something else)
2) no access to proper knowledge on the subject
3) no correct understanding of the knowledge, even if they have access
4) no practical application, even if they have a correct understanding
5) not developing the correct mood that enables god to reciprocate directly

such reciprocation happens not on the platform of the senses, not on the slightly superior platform of the mind, but on the superior platform of consciousness

in other words it is the reciprocation of consciousness (the noumena of our mind and senses) with god (the noumena of the entire manifestation)

stumbling with the obstacles in developing such a platform of knowledge one will be forced to suffer at the hands of empiricism and rationalism eternally

 

[shaman_]

Yeah I started a thread on this, however no one could give me examples of empirical evidence....they could only give me things like "well if one day God came down and appeared to everyone at once, then I'd be convinced" or "if you revived an amputee's leg"...this is not empirical evidence of God nor a soul...try again

I'm not being dishonest all..you clearly do not know what empirical evidence is...

You were given answers that were similar to acts in the bible - you know, the religious text that describes god. You were given answers that were a display of god-like powers and you refuse to accept these answers and keep repeating "atheists can't answer the question". When challenged you admit that you really mean no one could answer the question to your satisfaction. When challenged again you try to wiggle by claiming that you actually meant empirical evidence the whole time and therefore those answers don't count. Yes you are being dishonest.

The first definition of empirical evidence I found was "evidence relating to or based on experience or observation".

Lets say that praying for amputee's caused their legs/arms to grow back or made the sick heal instantly. Explain to me why you don't think this could be empirical evidence for a god or the supernatural.

 

[Nasor]

The empiricist's dilemma regarding evidence for God or the soul is that the empiricists cannot tell anyone what is an example of empirical evidence that would indicate that God or the soul exists...yet the empiricists foolishly says "see there's no evidence, so that must mean there is no soul or God, even though I can't tell you what would be evidence of the soul or God, and even though absence of evidence when there shouldn't be evidence present doesn't indicate anything, the reason I don't believe is because there is no evidence"

Don't be silly. There are many things that could serve as evidence for a god. If people who had lost a limb could pray to a particular god and re-grow their limbs, that would be evidence that that particular god existed. If the worshipers of a particular god were magically protected from harm, that would be evidence for that particular god’s existence. If a particular god manifested himself in 10-mile-high flaming letters in the sky, spelling out a message for his followers, that would be evidence for that particular god. If the followers of a particular god were able to consistently provide information that shouldn’t normally be accessible to humans (In 17 days there will be a magnitude 6.4 earthquake in Chili!) that would be evidence. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. I’m sure any atheist/empiricist who thought about it could come up with many more.

But then, we've already been over this, haven't we? You have already been given many examples of what sorts of evidence atheists would accept for god's existence. Yet you choose to continue to lie by saying "the empiricists cannot tell anyone what is an example of empirical evidence that would indicate that God or the soul exists." Stop lying! You have been given many examples of evidence that would convince atheists.

 

[Nasor]

Yeah I started a thread on this, however no one could give me examples of empirical evidence....they could only give me things like "well if one day God came down and appeared to everyone at once, then I'd be convinced" or "if you revived an amputee's leg"...this is not empirical evidence of God nor a soul...try again

This is utterly hilarious.

I'm not being dishonest all..you clearly do not know what empirical evidence is...

You appear to be the one who does not know what "empirical evidence" is. Empirical evidence is evidence based on real-world observation or measurement (rather than pure logic or philosophy). If I make the observation that people can re-grow lost limbs when they pray to a particular god, that is empirical evidence that their god exists.

 

[grover]

The first definition of empirical evidence I found was "evidence relating to or based on experience or observation".

The basis of all religous experience.

 

[Nasor]

The basis of all religous experience.

Yes, but when people talk about empirical evidence they generally don’t mean subjective internal experiences.

 

[SkinWalker]

The basis of all religous experience.

Which experiences and observations are religions based upon? Please cite the ones that have some basis in reality.

Religious adherents say their beliefs are based on observation and experience, but the reality is that they base them on doctrine, mythology, and irrational beliefs. Saying that god has been "experienced" and successfully demonstrating that the perceived experience was a god are two very different phenomena.