Believing God does NOT exist with certainty suggests ignorance comparable to theists

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat

and when you have vocal element that is interested in not interested, you have problems

Agreed, but quite often you end up with interested requests for a demonstration and no demonstration.

there's some problem with the link but I can guarantee there will be ample opportunities for me to say "what a load of horse shit" in my persona as a high school drop out.

Let's try that URL again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related

In your high school drop out persona, it doesn't matter if you accept the demonstration or not. It stands on its own. What reality says exists well exists and it doesn't matter whether people accept that or not.

hehe

Just wait until you have kids ....

Who said I didnt? Teachning a child how to think about information (you know in that stage where they accept anything you say as truth) goes a long way towards their "getting it" and not arguing stupid ideas.

Your explanation on why something is happening can be hotly contested however

I don't have to include a why when showing something exists.

and accept your testimonial authority, eh?
how convenient ....

Just observe what reality is saying. That's it. Whether he accepts it or not doesn't matter after that. It's his problem.

“


erm .....the only thing that has been demonstrated by empiricism is empirical claims.

Effectively what you are doing is saying that in order for something to be true it must be approachable by our (human) ability to measure, control and repeat.

Do you want to clarify and retract your statement or dig yourself down deeper?

Neither. But I will correct your interpretation. What I am saying is that for something to be true, reality has to agree and no other source of agreement matters.

so you feel that a good insurance policy against delusion is to own a microscope? .... meh

It's a start. Knowing how visibility works goes a long way.

interesting that you mention psychology and offer belief in gods as a "how or why" ..... but anyway, I'll give you another chance to mention some discipline of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation of venturing into "how's and why's"

Again, the point was missed. If A is a "what" and B is a "what", then A can become the "how/why" of B. The "how/why" of A isn't necessary.

 

[Hapsburg]

what do you claim it is precisely about theological convictions that prevents one from being certain about them?

Same thing that makes absolute statements in science inaccurate: new information can come along at any time, and can radically change how things are seen. So it's a bit arrogant to say that one knows all that can be known about it (whether it be theology or whatever) and make a statement of absolute certainty.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

and when you have vocal element that is interested in not interested, you have problems

”
Agreed, but quite often you end up with interested requests for a demonstration and no demonstration.

I know what you mean

As a high school drop out I am still waiting for you to demonstrate an electron to me .. and not some blurry blue thing that looks like a cockroach's anus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there's some problem with the link but I can guarantee there will be ample opportunities for me to say "what a load of horse shit" in my persona as a high school drop out.
”
Let's try that URL again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-O...eature=related

In your high school drop out persona, it doesn't matter if you accept the demonstration or not.

so in your atheist persona, it doesn't matter if you accept the demonstartion of god or not?

It stands on its own.

Correction
It stands on the testimonial authority of physicists.
If they are cool calm and scientific voice talking about seismic topographies of the anus of cockroach over the same visual footage, you wouldn't be any wiser.

What reality says exists well exists and it doesn't matter whether people accept that or not.

I don't hear reality speaking on the URL
I hear some guy (who probably has a degree of familiarity with what he is talking about)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hehe

Just wait until you have kids ....
”
Who said I didnt? Teachning a child how to think about information (you know in that stage where they accept anything you say as truth) goes a long way towards their "getting it" and not arguing stupid ideas.

the value of testimonial authority (at the right time in the right place to the right person), eh?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Your explanation on why something is happening can be hotly contested however
”
I don't have to include a why when showing something exists.

perhaps not if you are preaching to the converted

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and accept your testimonial authority, eh?
how convenient ....
”
Just observe what reality is saying. That's it. Whether he accepts it or not doesn't matter after that. It's his problem.

what reality is saying?
hearing voices are you?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“


erm .....the only thing that has been demonstrated by empiricism is empirical claims.

Effectively what you are doing is saying that in order for something to be true it must be approachable by our (human) ability to measure, control and repeat.

Do you want to clarify and retract your statement or dig yourself down deeper?
”
Neither. But I will correct your interpretation. What I am saying is that for something to be true, reality has to agree and no other source of agreement matters.

yes of course

the problem is that you define reality (so it seems anyway) as something that must be approachable by our (human) ability to measure, control and repeat ....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so you feel that a good insurance policy against delusion is to own a microscope? .... meh
”
It's a start. Knowing how visibility works goes a long way.

I guess the relative absence of them must indicate that there is not enough vocational openings for lab assistants or something ...

(actually the real insurance policy against delusion is to have properly established understandings of testimonial authority ... it helps us do so many things from driving on the right of the road to eating)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
interesting that you mention psychology and offer belief in gods as a "how or why" ..... but anyway, I'll give you another chance to mention some discipline of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation of venturing into "how's and why's"
”
Again, the point was missed. If A is a "what" and B is a "what", then A can become the "how/why" of B. The "how/why" of A isn't necessary.

I've read that three times and it doesn't make sense ... particularly in regards to your explanation of why we have gods on the strength of psychology

 

[lightgigantic]

Same thing that makes absolute statements in science inaccurate: new information can come along at any time, and can radically change how things are seen. So it's a bit arrogant to say that one knows all that can be known about it (whether it be theology or whatever) and make a statement of absolute certainty.

so if, for example, you had just eaten 2 medium pizza's, 3 large milk shakes, 1 apple pie and half a tub of ice cream (all within the period of two hours) .... and you were feeling like a bloated pig .... would you have absolute certainty that you are no longer feeling hungry?

 

[thisisme]

Crunchy cat


“
so in your atheist persona, it doesn't matter if you accept the demonstartion of god or not?

You have not demonstrated that god exists, nor can you.




the value of testimonial authority (at the right time in the right place to the right person), eh?

are you claiming to have testimonial authority about god because you certainly can't have testimonial authority about something that you can't prove exists.


the problem is that you define reality (so it seems anyway) as something that must be approachable by our (human) ability to measure, control and repeat ....

why is this a problem, if it is unable to be experienced by our senses, through means of experience or measure then it is unknowable. If it is unknowable, then it is unprovable and therefore your beliefs and statements up to this point in the thread about transcendental philosophy and non-empirical philosophy are pointless.

 

[thisisme]

I apologize for the previous post. This is my first time posting and I couldn't figure out how to use the proper format. Then I tried to delete my post but I couldn't figure out how to do that either. Sorry.

 

[Hapsburg]

so if, for example, you had just eaten 2 medium pizza's, 3 large milk shakes, 1 apple pie and half a tub of ice cream (all within the period of two hours) .... and you were feeling like a bloated pig .... would you have absolute certainty that you are no longer feeling hungry?

Nope. You'd have a strong likelihood, an extremely high probability, that you were no longer feeling hungry. Probably like a 99.9999~% sureness.
But there's always the chance that your stomach could settle a moment later and you might feel like eating one more slice of pizza.

It's just easier to say "I'm not hungry" than it is to say "I feel like I'm probably most likely not hungry, though that could change at any moment".
But from a philosophical standpoint, absolute certainty is generally arrogant, because the only thing constant is change.

Hence why I say, "I believe that there are many gods, and that they most likely exist," rather than "I know there are many gods and they obviously exist". One is a statement of personal faith, while the other is kind of a dick thing to say.

 

[lightgigantic]

why is this a problem, if it is unable to be experienced by our senses, through means of experience or measure then it is unknowable.

Empiricism is more than merely "the experience through the senses" .... in requires a controlled environment etc etc

More details on another thread OP

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1934111&postcount=1

If it is unknowable, then it is unprovable and therefore your beliefs and statements up to this point in the thread about transcendental philosophy and non-empirical philosophy are pointless.

I am not saying that it is unknowable.

I am saying that via empiricism it is unknowable (since empiricism is only valid for examining things that we can control)

 

[lightgigantic]

Nope. You'd have a strong likelihood, an extremely high probability, that you were no longer feeling hungry. Probably like a 99.9999~% sureness.
But there's always the chance that your stomach could settle a moment later and you might feel like eating one more slice of pizza.

It's just easier to say "I'm not hungry" than it is to say "I feel like I'm probably most likely not hungry, though that could change at any moment".
But from a philosophical standpoint, absolute certainty is generally arrogant, because the only thing constant is change.

Hence why I say, "I believe that there are many gods, and that they most likely exist," rather than "I know there are many gods and they obviously exist". One is a statement of personal faith, while the other is kind of a dick thing to say.

so you're certain that you cannot be certain, right?

 

[Orleander]

Is saying God doesn't exist because there is no proof like saying there is no life on other planets because there is no proof?
Don't most atheists think there is life on another planet somewhere in the universe?