Defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments

[lightgigantic]

.



And to be quite honest, I barely skimmed the rest of your post, I only noticed the word "archaeologists" as I was about to close my browser. .

From original post establishing thread topic

"There is so much testimony from great philosophers and scientists about a category (God) that explains all other categories, and if a person is not interested it seems to indicate that a person is non-philosophical – in other words if the category gets too big that it makes me small – well- that’s enough philosophy, that’s enough science, that’s enough investigation – they lose their nerve – their philosophical enquiry gets blunted by envy."

 

[Sarkus]

actually this is the defeat of atheistic arguments - if an atheist is not saying anything about how god doesn't exist, then this thread isn't relevant

Why is it not relevant?
You have this absurd notion that all atheists have a belief in the non-existence of God.

...as for proving the existence of god - thats on the other thread - the correct epistemology one - so if you want to take this diatribe there, I may respond to it (but for god's sake try and keep it concise - I can not always guarentee I will have so much idle time on my hand to thrash out long posts like Satyr's

Noted.

Makes me more curious where you get the conviction for your arguments that god doesn't exist - assuming that you actually have such arguments.

Where do you get the notion that I have such a belief? I don't. I am merely an atheist - I do not have a belief in the existence of God.
I am not one who goes so far as to believe in the non-existence of God.

So sarkus Have you been to china?

Yes, thanks.

If not, do you believe china exists (or to a lesser extent, do you give a greater ontological status to the country you are currently residing in over china)? If you actually do believe in china, please explain the logical premises behind your conviction.

If I hadn't actually stepped foot in China - would I still believe it exists? No - there is no "belief" about it. There is a weight of evidence that makes the probability of China actually existing being high enough to be called a "fact". There is no religious-level of "belief" (blind faith) involved - and is merely just a probability of objective reality.
This evidence would, however, all be 2nd hand to me - through friends, word of mouth, and various forms of media (t.v., radio, literature etc).
But subconsciously I have weighed up the probability that China does exist based on the available evidence and found it to be worthy of factual status.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think a fart in the wind constitutes, for you, good enough proof for an absolute hypothetical you so desperately need to make life tolerable.

Debating your type, as many others will soon find out, is like casting pebbles in the Grand Canyon to fill it up. Just too much empty space there.

I will just respond to the parts, and even then only in brief, that actually have something to do with debate and not a battle of wills, which is kind of a useless endeavour

Why would you think I care?

What a novel evasive tactic.

Now disprove Santa Clause and I’ll stop believing he’ll bring me that new computer, I so desperately want, this Christmas.

Do you mean the atheists who humor you into responses so that with your every word they get that feeling so superiority in comparison?

Why would it matter if I’m on someone’s ‘ignore list’ in some sub-standard “intellectual” community Forum?
Sorry for not taking myself as seriously as you do.
Then again I’m not insecure and egotistical enough to have succumbed to the idea of eternity and God.
My ego begins and ends in relation to you, in the real world…you know the one that scares you with its uncertainty.

And one more thing.

Never change, little mind. Never…change.
Not that you could but still……

I leave you now to continue using ‘epistemology’ and ‘ontology’ as a way of pretending you are being open-minded and philosophical.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom or knowledge.
You are a lover of God or self. You only accept knowledge which justifies this obsession.

bravo

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Why is it not relevant?
You have this absurd notion that all atheists have a belief in the non-existence of God.

Perhaps its because they keep showing up on the "defeating varieties of atheistic arguments thread"

Where do you get the notion that I have such a belief? I don't. I am merely an atheist - I do not have a belief in the existence of God.
I am not one who goes so far as to believe in the non-existence of God.

Well why are you on this thread then if you hae no argument to offer why god doesn't exist?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D

I can see that I made a mistake by not being clear enough

testimony establishes credibility (neither of these three are infallible - the testimony, the establishment or the credibility)
credibility inspires us to apply an epistemology (neither of these three are infallible)
epistemology grants an ontological perspective - if one has applied the successful epistemology, one is granted the ontlogical perspective
Or to put it quite simply, we may hear so many things, true and false, that may inspire us to studdy some aspect of knowledge, but only a person who has actually studied it can verify the authenticity of its claims - would you lay as a condition for verifying the authenticity of archeological claims it is suficient to call on a carpenter? Or even to call on a astronomer?

P1. Testimony establishes credibility
P2 Credibility grants ability to apply epistemology
C Item X exists.

Hmmmmm...you sure you have the title of this thread right?

Actually my point was not this - my point was that one can receive training in any field of knowledge and still receive something false - its not as simple as putting your backside on the seat of any room that has a sign out the front "science" or "religion" or "medicine" or anything - for instance if you came out of doctor's school but couldn't measure someone's pulse it raises shadows of doubt over the epistemology you have been applying for the past 7 years - in other words ontological achievement can be qualified

If you came out of med school and couldn't measure a pulse you'd be a j@ck@$$.

At any rate, of course someone can tell you something false or miscommunicate knowledge. However, theistic epistemology relies ONLY on hearsay. A physics professor can teach you that water is more dense than engine oil and you can test that yourself and prove him wrong with cold hard physical evidence.

and like I said, if you try this in the real world you will either get two responses - 1 - a more charismatic speech from the salesman (which won't work because you insist on being shown by logic alone)
or -2- th e reply "sorry we don't do business that way"

I told you, I was a salesperson. My first large sale was US1.6M in laptops with NO stock to demo, NO stock for the customer to test their specialized app on, NO stock of a new line of laptop to even see if their GM liked it aesthetically. The point? I will sell you a commodity without you needing to test drive it.

The real world is about money, if the customer is dumb enough to NOT test drive a car (or whatever) and still willing to buy, heck I'd sell em beachfront property in Abu Dabi if they want. This comparison is not parallel in any way to your premise.

In otherwords if a peson is not prepared to do something as simple as take a car for a test run it indicates that the person is not at all serious about buying the car - in otherwords the refusal to apply the epistemology of religious proceses to actually understand god by atheists who insist on inundating religious threads with their perspectives of god indicates thathey are not serious about actually understanding god in the first place - if they were serious they would approach the matter in a mood of scientific inquiry - instead they choose to wallow in what is defined as unsatisfactory levels of performance for perceiving the related ontology.

You titled the thread "defeating varieties of athiestic arguments". Why complain when they show you that you can't? Keep in mind that a number of athiests went thru religious training for various lengths of time before finally renouncing religion. They at LEAST have understanding and knowledge of teachings up to where they left off (first communion, confirmation, even theological studies and ordination). You ASSUME that athiests have no experience in religion (another fallacy).

As for how philosophy is practical applicaion, think of it in terms of theory and prac - if I want to talk about physics, yet have not studied it, what am I?

Well read maybe?

yes for persons who speak english

Yep, the "John Q. Public" nick is english, hence...

I am not sure what your point is - that these concepts are unique to greek civilisation and I must establish a cultural link to establish how they were formed in India? (Actually there is a consensus, or perhas the closest thing one can expect to a consensus amongst the empirical comunity, that greek language is derived from sanskrit). But even if you disagree - if the greeks had a word for water and the vedas also have a word for water, isn't it clear what we are talking about?

No lightee, you seemed to allude that everyone else stole it from India and somehow us "less read" people wouldn't understand what your grand words "epistemology and ontology" were. Epistemology and ontology would have the same definition in whatever language, so why even bring up the sanskrit link?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So unanswered questions, ie curiousity, is not a driving force behind science? - and what are scientific theories if not answers that don't have an empirical basis?
”

So when it is declared that there is a uniformity in time and space, and thus the field is open for contemporary astronomy, it has actually been proven that light passing through a hydrogen gas 1000 000 000 000 miles away reacts the same as light passing through a gas here? And why are they bothering to look out into space in the first place if they're not curious?

Simple enough to prove by simulating a vacuum. Controlled lab experiments to compare with space events have been possible for quite a while. I love the fact that you're counting on a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig rooouuuuund number to try to cause intimidation.

So you are advocating that when scientists pose the questions about the universe they don't really care?

Never said that. YOU implied that it is IMpossible that unanswered questions and curiosity cannot exist without each other. I just stated that it is possible that they can be unrelated. For example the scientist that is just good at physics and decides to simply make money discovering answers to questions by working for CERN rather than having any curiousity about anything.

eg - of blind disbelief - a person is convinced that al the water in the world is poisoned so they get all worried and try to explain to everyone what has happened and eventually they drop dead from dehydration - inother words a person can disbelieve something for no good reason, just like they can believe in something.

What in Hell's bathroom is this? This explanation was about someone blindly BELIEVING that 100% of the water was poisoned...and NOT testing it on a fly or a lab rat. Or even a simple centrifuge. How about a distiller to purify it? You were counting on semantics here.

I also sense a lack of epistemology of the scientific process. :bugeye:

But I don't challenge any of the premises that they raise, I cite them as parrallel evidences actually - for instance I haven't said "history is false" - you however are saying "god is false" so if you are not qualified, why do you say such things?

When did i ever say "god is false"? I'm challenging your arguments. Such as they are.

lol - well, what if you were not prepared to do that - after all you are insisting on the pure use of logic

But now you are relying on direct perception, which is a different process of knowledge than logic - actually the epistemology of religion leads to perceiving god with the senses - just like there is the direct perception of an electron (or the closest thing to perceiving it) after applying an epistemology of prac and theory in physics


There's no physical test for perceiving an electron for a person who refuses to acknowledge the related theory and prac - should we also dismiss such fictional entities as atoms and molecules?

1. Lightee, honey, sweetie, baby...buying a car (a scientific product) cannot be compared to believing in a god (a product of faith).

2. Following from #1: Relying on senses is a function of logic. If you can feel it, it is bouncy; if you can smell it, it is chocolate , if you can see it, then you must put on your D&G shades, if you can hear it, the engine must be working. etc etc. just as odd examples. Can you SEE/SMELL/TASTE/TOUCH/HEAR god? And voices in your head don't count. The air doesn't count. The sea doesn't count. Those are not god.

What you may be confusing the five senses for is the adrenaline and endorphins that theists generate during their various ceremonies. Yes that's a belief, but I have proper epistemology for that.

3. Of course there are physical tests for perceiving an electron. JJ Thompson and Ernest Rutherford would disagree with you. And you're just going to jump on my case and say "testimony! testimony!". Unlike YOU, physicists and even the learned lay-person can duplicate these experiments and see for themselves. Believing that god exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Maybe this thread should be renamed "Self-defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments"

HEY HEY HEY...don't be stealin' my bon mots (lol)

Page 2:

:
Fallacious P1 P2 and C again lightee-baby. I'm starting to think that this thread should have been named: "Various Self-defeating Theistic Arguments"

 

[Sarkus]

Well why are you on this thread then if you hae no argument to offer why god doesn't exist?

Firstly, if you want to restrict your counters to only those arguments from atheists that have a belief in the non-existence of god - then you need to be more clear in the thread.

Secondly, you stated in your second post on this thread: "As far as this thread is concerned, however, it is an opportunity to examine the application of logic by atheists"

So please do tell me where my application of logic (by an atheist) is wrong in not having a belief that a god exists?

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise-D

P1. Testimony establishes credibility
P2 Credibility grants ability to apply epistemology
C Item X exists.

Actually if you read what I say it is more like
P1 - by hearing testimony a person establishes a credible impressionof the source
P2 - On the strength of the source's credibility one may be inspired to apply the epistemology
P3 - if the epistemology is actually bonafide it grants the ontological goal.
P4 - having arrived at the point of ontology one is then able to determine the actual validity/invalidity of the before mentioned testimony, credibility and epistemology

Hmmmmm...you sure you have the title of this thread right?

Yes but sometimes I wonder whether people read anything more than the title

If you came out of med school and couldn't measure a pulse you'd be a j@ck@$$.

At any rate, of course someone can tell you something false or miscommunicate knowledge. However, theistic epistemology relies ONLY on hearsay. A physics professor can teach you that water is more dense than engine oil and you can test that yourself and prove him wrong with cold hard physical evidence.

Similar evidence exists in theistic epistemology - like for instance if I claim to love god but am hopelessly swayed by the transient nature of ephemeral material opulence it can be understood that my actions don't follow my claims.
You might say it is hearsay, but then wouldn't anyone who has not grasped the epistemology of anything (not just theistic knowledge) say the same thing? Like for instance th e high school drop out vs electrons?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and like I said, if you try this in the real world you will either get two responses - 1 - a more charismatic speech from the salesman (which won't work because you insist on being shown by logic alone)
or -2- th e reply "sorry we don't do business that way"
”

I told you, I was a salesperson. My first large sale was US1.6M in laptops with NO stock to demo, NO stock for the customer to test their specialized app on, NO stock of a new line of laptop to even see if their GM liked it aesthetically. The point? I will sell you a commodity without you needing to test drive it.

There's a difefrence between selling new computers and second hand cars - regardless though, it doesn't seem to indicate that you didn't lather people in persuasiveness - on the contrary it seems that you more than likely did.

The real world is about money, if the customer is dumb enough to NOT test drive a car (or whatever) and still willing to buy, heck I'd sell em beachfront property in Abu Dabi if they want. This comparison is not parallel in any way to your premise.

The point is that the customer is
1-not willing to buy the car unless it is proven that it runs well by the use of logic - in other wods you would have to pull out a blackboard and chalk or something and establish by logic that it works (of course you can sell someone stool on the footpath with persuasion - thats another thing)
2- he is also not willing to go for a test drive.
The result is that the salesman will say "Sorry we do not do business that way"

You titled the thread "defeating varieties of athiestic arguments". Why complain when they show you that you can't? Keep in mind that a number of athiests went thru religious training for various lengths of time before finally renouncing religion. They at LEAST have understanding and knowledge of teachings up to where they left off (first communion, confirmation, even theological studies and ordination). You ASSUME that athiests have no experience in religion (another fallacy).

Again, if you read what was there, you would see that I was departing from the point after deconstructing atheistic arguments - you don't need to prove theism to defeat atheism - thats the whole point of this thread - someone offers an atheistic argument and it gets deconstructed in the said fashion.

Like for instance you ae offering this argument
P1 - atheists have previous experience going to church
P2 - going to church establishes theistic epistemology
c - going to church does not establish epstemology in everyone

Actually I would agree with that - attending a place of worship, and going through some of the rituals etc, while not detrimental to t he establishment of epistemology, it certainly requires something more
Just like

P1 - university drop outs have previous experience going to uni
P2 - going to uni establishes epistemology
c - going to university does not establish epistemology in everyone

In otherwords, is it sufficient to determine whether one has fully approached the given epistemology simply because they have attended the formalities/socialities of the institution?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
As for how philosophy is practical applicaion, think of it in terms of theory and prac - if I want to talk about physics, yet have not studied it, what am I?
”



Well read maybe?

Actually not even that, because I haven't studied it.


No lightee, you seemed to allude that everyone else stole it from India and somehow us "less read" people wouldn't understand what your grand words "epistemology and ontology" were. Epistemology and ontology would have the same definition in whatever language, so why even bring up the sanskrit link?

I only brought it up because others, perhaps not you, were complaining that I was bandying the words "epistemology" and "ontolgy" around - so I gave them some background info why I am using these words - as for the cultural heritage of the world - well its not really relevant to this thread at the moment - but I think its not greek, in case you are interested to know my opinions

Simple enough to prove by simulating a vacuum. Controlled lab experiments to compare with space events have been possible for quite a while. I love the fact that you're counting on a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig rooouuuuund number to try to cause intimidation.

Then instead of proving the uniformity of time and space at a distance of some random collection of integers that you find more attractive, now you have to prove that a controlled vacuum atmosphere exists at the same distance- and all in the absence of exhibiting any curiousity too, since you insist that science isn't driven by curiousity.

Never said that. YOU implied that it is IMpossible that unanswered questions and curiosity cannot exist without each other. I just stated that it is possible that they can be unrelated. For example the scientist that is just good at physics and decides to simply make money discovering answers to questions by working for CERN rather than having any curiousity about anything.

Such a scientist wouldn't work in research then - perhaps he could work punching numbers into administration files or sweeping the floor - but I would offer that there is a distinction between an actual scientist who is researching and someone who has gone through the formalities of higher education to pay for their baby's pooey nappies

What in Hell's bathroom is this? This explanation was about someone blindly BELIEVING that 100% of the water was poisoned...and NOT testing it on a fly or a lab rat. Or even a simple centrifuge. How about a distiller to purify it? You were counting on semantics here.

I also sense a lack of epistemology of the scientific process. :bugeye:

Exactly - blind disbelief implies all of this - just like a person blindly disbelieves in god despite never applying the relevant epistemology to determining the validity/invalidity of the claim

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But I don't challenge any of the premises that they raise, I cite them as parrallel evidences actually - for instance I haven't said "history is false" - you however are saying "god is false" so if you are not qualified, why do you say such things?
”

When did i ever say "god is false"? I'm challenging your arguments. Such as they are.

So you don't think god and the epistemologies that lead to perceiving god are false?

1. Lightee, honey, sweetie, baby...buying a car (a scientific product) cannot be compared to believing in a god (a product of faith).

I can now see what techniques you used to sell your computers - maybe you should have stuck to retail instead of philosophy

2. Following from #1: Relying on senses is a function of logic. If you can feel it, it is bouncy; if you can smell it, it is chocolate , if you can see it, then you must put on your D&G shades, if you can hear it, the engine must be working. etc etc. just as odd examples. Can you SEE/SMELL/TASTE/TOUCH/HEAR god? And voices in your head don't count. The air doesn't count. The sea doesn't count. Those are not god.

So in other words the logic of examining the epistemology of cooking a pizza enables you to eat a pizza, even before coming to the point of applying the epistemology?

What you may be confusing the five senses for is the adrenaline and endorphins that theists generate during their various ceremonies. Yes that's a belief, but I have proper epistemology for that.

You are confusing the mental idea of acquiring something with actually acquiring it (and to think you accuse me of listening to voices in my head)

3. Of course there are physical tests for perceiving an electron. JJ Thompson and Ernest Rutherford would disagree with you. And you're just going to jump on my case and say "testimony! testimony!". Unlike YOU, physicists and even the learned lay-person can duplicate these experiments and see for themselves. Believing that god exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail.

The point is that an electron is invisible and its movements are determined by the trail it emits while passing through a gas (at least that is one method) - to come to this point of directly perceiving an electron it requires a substantial level of epistemology - if one lacks that (like the famous high school drop out) one wil say things like "Believing that an electron exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail

 

[lightgigantic]

Firstly, if you want to restrict your counters to only those arguments from atheists that have a belief in the non-existence of god - then you need to be more clear in the thread.

Secondly, you stated in your second post on this thread: "As far as this thread is concerned, however, it is an opportunity to examine the application of logic by atheists"

So please do tell me where my application of logic (by an atheist) is wrong in not having a belief that a god exists?

Is it logical to test the logic of something that doesn't exist? If you don't actualy have an argument why god doesn't exist, but insist on staying at the point "I have never met god" this thread is not for you.

I've devoted an entire thread to that - its in the epistemology thread (but for some reason you don't want to go there) - in short though the answer is - because you have not applied the relevant epistemology

 

[audible]

I've devoted an entire thread to that - its in the epistemology thread (but for some reason you don't want to go there) - in short though the answer is - because you have not applied the relevant epistemology

wow you are still coming out with the irrational and inane.
a few weeks back it was your not qualified, to know this or that, and now it you dont have the right epistemology, just more pseudo- mumbo jumbo BS.
I cant wait to read some of your other stuff just for the humour. thanks for the laugh.

 

[lightgigantic]

qualified, to know this or that, and now it you dont have the right epistemology,

qualification and knowledge are what epistemology deals with - if you gain nothing from your visits to this site at least you will improve your vocab

 

[Sarkus]

Is it logical to test the logic of something that doesn't exist?

Strawman. The thread is not about the logic of the thing in question but of the arguments one uses to reach their conclusions.

One can quite happily define a god that is logically possible - e.g. anything that exists outside the realm of the material or outside the universe.
But this is the logic of a concept - not of the argument supporting belief or non-belief in it. They are separate matters entirely.

If you don't actualy have an argument why god doesn't exist, but insist on staying at the point "I have never met god" this thread is not for you.

Why is it not? I am an atheist - my "atheistic arguments" are as up to scrutiny as anyone else's.

If you want a thread to just be for, or relate to, the "I believe god does not exist" variety of atheist - then please state that in the thread opener.

I've devoted an entire thread to that - its in the epistemology thread (but for some reason you don't want to go there) - in short though the answer is - because you have not applied the relevant epistemology

Ah yes - your answer to everything.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Is it logical to test the logic of something that doesn't exist? ”

Strawman. The thread is not about the logic of the thing in question but of the arguments one uses to reach their conclusions.

Actually this thread is about atheists who have an argument why god doesn't exist, such as "God doesn't exist because ........"

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you don't actualy have an argument why god doesn't exist, but insist on staying at the point "I have never met god" this thread is not for you. ”

Why is it not? I am an atheist - my "atheistic arguments" are as up to scrutiny as anyone else's.

Because it is better dealt with in the thread which deals specifically with the process of knowing god

If you want a thread to just be for, or relate to, the "I believe god does not exist" variety of atheist - then please state that in the thread opener.

I would have thought it would have been obvious to a person who actually reads the opening post (which I am coming to understand is quite a rare phenomena on this forum)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I've devoted an entire thread to that - its in the epistemology thread (but for some reason you don't want to go there) - in short though the answer is - because you have not applied the relevant epistemology ”

Ah yes - your answer to everything.

So now it is not rational to direct a person who's stance is "I have never seen" to a thread that deals with the process of seeing?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D

Actually if you read what I say it is more like
P1 - by hearing testimony a person establishes a credible impressionof the source
P2 - On the strength of the source's credibility one may be inspired to apply the epistemology
P3 - if the epistemology is actually bonafide it grants the ontological goal.
P4 - having arrived at the point of ontology one is then able to determine the actual validity/invalidity of the before mentioned testimony, credibility and
epistemology

Burying my original Ps in a longer set of Ps does not invalidate the illogic of your C (or P4 as I assume P4 was supposed to be). You have no physical evidence. Epistemology means squat without it.

Yes but sometimes I wonder whether people read anything more than the title

Yeah we do, but your title sets the mood for the debate. That's why we're winning.

Similar evidence exists in theistic epistemology - like for instance if I claim to love god but am hopelessly swayed by the transient nature of ephemeral material opulence it can be understood that my actions don't follow my claims.

Why can't rich people love their god? Do you then assume Bill Gates isn't a theist?

(Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is).

You might say it is hearsay, but then wouldn't anyone who has not grasped the epistemology of anything (not just theistic knowledge) say the same thing? Like for instance th e high school drop out vs electrons?

The origins of your "knowledge" are unprovable and a product of imagination. Electrons can be proven to anyone.

There's a difefrence between selling new computers and second hand cars - regardless though, it doesn't seem to indicate that you didn't lather people in persuasiveness - on the contrary it seems that you more than likely did.

My points were all logical in the sale. For example
1. Laptop specs exceed their software required spec.
2. Logistically unsound to acquire another provider since my company owned most of their service agreements.
3. Laptops were constructed with commonality of parts hence swapping parts to facilitate downed machines would be easy.

These may seem persuasive, but all unchallengable logical points are.

"Persuasiveness" to me entails minor bribery such as taking the client for drinks or telling her that her breasts seem unusually full today.

The point is that the customer is
1-not willing to buy the car unless it is proven that it runs well by the use of logic - in other wods you would have to pull out a blackboard and chalk or something and establish by logic that it works (of course you can sell someone stool on the footpath with persuasion - thats another thing)
2- he is also not willing to go for a test drive.
The result is that the salesman will say "Sorry we do not do business that way"

You're a repetitive guy huh. Repetition serves theists well.

Salespersons will sell you anything. They will not pass up a chance at a commission check simply because you don't test drive the car. A new car can be sold totally via logic - similar to a laptop. Anyone with a Cost-Benefit calculation tool will tell you that. A new car will perform to factory specification. A used car (which you did not specify before) LOGICALLY must be sold via test driving. However, benchmark tools exist for cars (measuring the then state of oil/gas consumption, wear on tires, body structure etc), and if the used car sales company has access to these, they can sell used cars via logic without test driving as well.

Again, if you read what was there, you would see that I was departing from the point after deconstructing atheistic arguments - you don't need to prove theism to defeat atheism - thats the whole point of this thread - someone offers an atheistic argument and it gets deconstructed in the said fashion.

Um..you are trying to disprove athiesm (a conclusion based on logical observation) with philosophy (a school of thought processing). In trying to disprove a logical observation, it is highly doubtful that you can do so with imagination. You may give rise to thoughts of other possibilities, but this in no way disproves athiesm. (In reading back I think I say it best here).

Like for instance you ae offering this argument
P1 - atheists have previous experience going to church
P2 - going to church establishes theistic epistemology
c - going to church does not establish epstemology in everyone


Actually I would agree with that - attending a place of worship, and going through some of the rituals etc, while not detrimental to t he establishment of epistemology, it certainly requires something more

You conveniently left out that I mentioned that some athiests have more theological training than simply going to church. I'll skip that one til you refine it.

Just like

P1 - university drop outs have previous experience going to uni
P2 - going to uni establishes epistemology
c - going to university does not establish epistemology in everyone

In otherwords, is it sufficient to determine whether one has fully approached the given epistemology simply because they have attended the formalities/socialities of the institution?

Very clever ruse lightee. This one is the reason why I took a while to respond

(linking to your church Ps and C)
Attending church services amount to exactly 52 hours a year. Actually let's add an extra 2 hours for each special service (New Years, Easter, Christmas). That's 58 hours. Then the general knowledge is recycled.

Attending a university for a year equates to (estimate here from my own experience) is 8 hours a week by three semesters of 3 months. That's 288 hours of professor (and lab) time. I'll even leave out the private study and homework.

*Before responding, please keep in mind that YOUR position on epistemology is based on lectures and credibility. I'm just using an equivalent comparison above.

This unfair comparison is exactly why i included atheist theologians or athiests who were originally in ordination training. They'd have better epistemology on why using logic to validate faith, or INvalidate a logical position is impossible. On the flip side, you can easily see that more epistemology is gained by the university drop out in one year, than by the theist (or athiest) who attends church in one year.

Actually not even that, because I haven't studied it.

Hm...you berate me for your assumption that i have no epistemological knowledge of religion, yet turn around and try to argue about the car, the laptops, electrons etc with no epistemology of electronics, physics etc?

I only brought it up because others, perhaps not you, were complaining that I was bandying the words "epistemology" and "ontolgy" around - so I gave them some background info why I am using these words - as for the cultural heritage of the world - well its not really relevant to this thread at the moment - but I think its not greek, in case you are interested to know my opinions

Come now lightee...let's be honest. You are bandying the words about aren't you? You can tell us I believe (with enough epistemology) that theists resort to sciency sounding words to add credibility (ah the credibility thing again) to their claims. This is perhaps how "Scientology" came about. Nevertheless...

Our first clue was the number of times they occur in each of your posts. Recall: a good method of debating is to use repetition. Repetition induces the instinctive reaction of belief.

Our next clue is your insistence that "epistemology" otherwise knows as "the origin of knowledge" is proof. How does a man come to know something? As a child man knows stuff that he is told. As an adult, more realistic factors (like proofs) must come into play. You have answered NOTHING by insisting on proper epistemology of religion or god because epistemology is a process of THOUGHT. It proves no existence.

Ontology is the philosophy behind existence. Ontology is also a school of THOUGHT. Once more, thinking does not in and of itself bring about proof. Similarly brooding on existence does not cause Item X to manifest or provide proof of manifestation. (and here)

Another clue is your alluding to an exotic culture. Whether or not Indian culture included philosophies such as these, they mean the same. Lending credibility (credibility again) to your terms by linking it to sanskrit through the word "translations" is of zero value. You'd know that were you thinking logically.

As I have stated, philosophy has no way of empirical proof (see any reknowned encyclopedia). Using philosophy (a thought process) to prove god (a product of a thought process) is self-fuelling. Your entire argument has a shaky foundation of hearsay and imagination. I've said this before, I can't fault you or tell you what to believe. I do fault you for trying to convert people and imposing your beliefs on others and becoming angry and uppity when we pose more logical ideas, that you can't disprove.

Then instead of proving the uniformity of time and space at a distance of some random collection of integers that you find more attractive, now you have to prove that a controlled vacuum atmosphere exists at the same distance- and all in the absence of exhibiting any curiousity too, since you insist that science isn't driven by curiousity.

Um...? Controlled simply means that the vacuum doesn't kill everyone in the room and it is uncontaminated by EARTH factors (like TV cathode rays). It is a reasonable

assumption that a vacuum that has an absence of relevant radiation will provide the same result anywhere. Plus if you like they can generate any known radiation you want in a lab.

ONCE again...science never states to know absolutely. Theists however seems to think they do.

AND lightee, I never insisted that science isn't driven by curiousity. You insist that it wholly is. I simply suggested that there may be scientists that do it for money.

Such a scientist wouldn't work in research then - perhaps he could work punching numbers into administration files or sweeping the floor - but I would offer that

there is a distinction between an actual scientist who is researching and someone who has gone through the formalities of higher education to pay for their baby's pooey nappies

You obviously haven't wielded much money in your life have you? A logical individual knowing he's good at something would definitely want to be paid a lot of money for it. Lightee where are you from? I'm pretty sure you're in a capitalist country. You ought to know better than that. Children are curious. Adults are realistic. Adults other than you i mean.

Exactly - blind disbelief implies all of this - just like a person blindly disbelieves in god despite never applying the relevant epistemology to determining the validity/invalidity of the claim

Crap coated with semantics. There is nothing for a mortal to apply epistemology on in theistic beliefs. Water is something physical to test.

So you don't think god and the epistemologies that lead to perceiving god are false?

I never said they were true, believable or credible either.

I can now see what techniques you used to sell your computers - maybe you should have stuck to retail instead of philosophy

Please put the above in your own "list of insults" thread. It is beneath me.

So in other words the logic of examining the epistemology of cooking a pizza enables you to eat a pizza, even before coming to the point of applying the epistemology?

Why are you using a simplistic invention (a product of chemistry), to compare to a god (a product of faith)? And why this needlessly complex way of saying: "The logic of examining the origins of knowing how to cook a pizza enables you to eat it, even before you DO cook it". (I don't know HOW you got that from that section of my post because it was MEANT as 'abbreviated' sarcasm).

How about a request: eliminate the words "epistemology", "ontology" and "apply" and their derivatives. Use synonyms and see if your arguments are any more effective.

You are confusing the mental idea of acquiring something with actually acquiring it (and to think you accuse me of listening to voices in my head)

Ah...you then are saying that your perception is in your head with no external stimuli other than the bible, hearsay and ceremony. Correct? I think so.

The point is that an electron is invisible and its movements are determined by the trail it emits while passing through a gas (at least that is one method) - to come to this point of directly perceiving an electron it requires a substantial level of epistemology - if one lacks that (like the famous high school drop out) one wil say things like "Believing that an electron exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail

This example is an aberration. And one with an expiry date. A high school drop out that has faith in an electron can be shown proof of the fact that his "faith" is justified and correct.

By the by: copying my arguments and changing a word to TRY to justify yours is actually the effort that is destined to fail. Especially when I never solely relied on either testimony epistemology or ontology to prove anything. I am not this supposed high school drop out. Neither do I care about him.

Fly across to my house (it'll be expensive) and I'll have one of my physics professors duplicate proof experiments for you. Can you make the same offer for any theist epistemology or testimony?

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D


“

”
Why can't rich people love their god? Do you then assume Bill Gates isn't a theist?

Even a poor person can be swayed by material nature - Even a rich person can resist it on the strength of their devotion to god - the reason is that its root is envy, which is not qualified by one's financial status

The origins of your "knowledge" are unprovable and a product of imagination. Electrons can be proven to anyone.

They cannot be proven to a highschool dropout who is adverse to science

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The point is that the customer is
1-not willing to buy the car unless it is proven that it runs well by the use of logic - in other wods you would have to pull out a blackboard and chalk or something and establish by logic that it works (of course you can sell someone stool on the footpath with persuasion - thats another thing)
2- he is also not willing to go for a test drive.
The result is that the salesman will say "Sorry we do not do business that way"

”

You're a repetitive guy huh. Repetition serves theists well.

School teachers and parents as well

Your diatribe about someone selling a second hand car is also repetitive and also doesn't bear much relevance to what I was saying, hence why I seem to repeat myself I guess.
Try again but this time rely on logic and not direct perception, namely measuring this or that
Maybe it is more progressive to use a different situation where the only obvious avenue of conviction is logic

Suppose you honey in a sealed jar and a person did not believe your testimonies that the honey was sweet - and also assume that for some strange reason they declared that you must prove to them that the honey is sweet without opening the lid - in other words when you only have logic as an avenue of explanation with no opportunity for participation it becomes a bit limiting -particularly when the obvious proceedure is to try it out

Um..you are trying to disprove athiesm (a conclusion based on logical observation) with philosophy (a school of thought processing). In trying to disprove a logical observation, it is highly doubtful that you can do so with imagination. You may give rise to thoughts of other possibilities, but this in no way disproves athiesm. (In reading back I think I say it best here).

Of course - even in the presence of logic a person is free tobelieve whatever they want -it doesn't however indicate thattheir beliefs are logical

You conveniently left out that I mentioned that some athiests have more theological training than simply going to church. I'll skip that one til you refine it.

Then define the "moreness" of their theological training



”

Very clever ruse lightee. This one is the reason why I took a while to respond

(linking to your church Ps and C)
Attending church services amount to exactly 52 hours a year. Actually let's add an extra 2 hours for each special service (New Years, Easter, Christmas). That's 58 hours. Then the general knowledge is recycled.

Attending a university for a year equates to (estimate here from my own experience) is 8 hours a week by three semesters of 3 months. That's 288 hours of professor (and lab) time. I'll even leave out the private study and homework.

*Before responding, please keep in mind that YOUR position on epistemology is based on lectures and credibility. I'm just using an equivalent comparison above.

This unfair comparison is exactly why i included atheist theologians or athiests who were originally in ordination training. They'd have better epistemology on why using logic to validate faith, or INvalidate a logical position is impossible. On the flip side, you can easily see that more epistemology is gained by the university drop out in one year, than by the theist (or athiest) who attends church in one year.

So what's your point? Church goers fail. So do university students. Even high priests fail alongside university professors. Others don't

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Actually not even that, because I haven't studied it.
”



Hm...you berate me for your assumption that i have no epistemological knowledge of religion, yet turn around and try to argue about the car, the laptops, electrons etc with no epistemology of electronics, physics etc?

I was taking the theoretical position of a person bereft of scientific knowledge -your appeal tothe authority of physics is only valid for a person established in th e knowledge of that field.
If a person replied to your original query ....
"Actually not even that, because I haven't studied it"
How would you respond?

Our first clue was the number of times they occur in each of your posts. Recall: a good method of debating is to use repetition. Repetition induces the instinctive reaction of belief.

It is also effective on persons hard of hearing

Our next clue is your insistence that "epistemology" otherwise knows as "the origin of knowledge" is proof. How does a man come to know something? As a child man knows stuff that he is told. As an adult, more realistic factors (like proofs) must come into play. You have answered NOTHING by insisting on proper epistemology of religion or god because epistemology is a process of THOUGHT. It proves no existence.

Why do adults go to university? Isit enough to read a print out from a blood testing machine by thinking about it?
In other words can't training assist epistemological processses?

Ontology is the philosophy behind existence. Ontology is also a school of THOUGHT. Once more, thinking does not in and of itself bring about proof.
Similarly brooding on existence does not cause Item X to manifest or provide proof of manifestation. (and here)

So in other words you are saying its not possible to have an objective thought - what makes you think that?

As I have stated, philosophy has no way of empirical proof (see any reknowned encyclopedia). Using philosophy (a thought process) to prove god (a product of a thought process) is self-fuelling.

I agree - if you read my posts you will see that I am saying that the thinking process can only bring one to the applying process - which, BTW, is the basis for the epistemology thread

Your entire argument has a shaky foundation of hearsay and imagination. I've said this before, I can't fault you or tell you what to believe. I do fault you for trying to convert people and imposing your beliefs on others and becoming angry and uppity when we pose more logical ideas, that you can't disprove.

You're not trying to change my ideas about changing other peoples ideas are you?

Um...? Controlled simply means that the vacuum doesn't kill everyone in the room and it is uncontaminated by EARTH factors (like TV cathode rays). It is a reasonable

assumption that a vacuum that has an absence of relevant radiation will provide the same result anywhere. Plus if you like they can generate any known radiation you want in a lab.

So in other words you are assuming that a vacuumed atmosphere is uniformat alltimesand places inthe universe

ONCE again...science never states to know absolutely. Theists however seems to think they do.

So first you say that the uniformity of time and space is a fact. Next you say it may be a fact. So we have two answers - Yes and Maybe -doyou want to go for a third?

AND lightee, I never insisted that science isn't driven by curiousity. You insist that it wholly is. I simply suggested that there may be scientists that do it for money.

yes you did

You : "I understand your question though...any scientific postulation that is put forth is an observation that requires explanation. Further to this empirical proofs can be established or ascertained.

However, unanswered questions does not equate to curiosity.

"

You obviously haven't wielded much money in your life have you? A logical individual knowing he's good at something would definitely want to be paid a lot of money for it.

I can perceive where your needs, interests and concerns lie
Generally people are greedy or envious for things they don't have


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Exactly - blind disbelief implies all of this - just like a person blindly disbelieves in god despite never applying the relevant epistemology to determining the validity/invalidity of the claim ”

Crap coated with semantics. There is nothing for a mortal to apply epistemology on in theistic beliefs.

To make that statement you would have to be omniscient at this in point time - in other words unless you know all that is knowable and unknowable for the rest of eternity, how do you make that statement, unless you are also coated in the before mentioned fecal matter

Water is something physical to test.

Only to a person who can approach water - like it becomes more difficult to test in the desert

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I can now see what techniques you used to sell your computers - maybe you should have stuck to retail instead of philosophy ”



Please put the above in your own "list of insults" thread. It is beneath me.

Perhaps it was inappropriate ,but then so was your condescending "Sweetie, honey, baby ...."



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So in other words the logic of examining the epistemology of cooking a pizza enables you to eat a pizza, even before coming to the point of applying the epistemology?
”



Why are you using a simplistic invention (a product of chemistry), to compare to a god (a product of faith)?

Because you understand pizzas but don't understand god - i am just applying the same general principles to a mutually agreeable knowable subject - basically you seem tobe saying that being familiar with the process of cooking a pizza (ie knowing how to know god) is sufficient to eat a pizza even without cooking etc (ie ... should enable one to see/ touch god - never mind the point of application)

How about a request: eliminate the words "epistemology", "ontology" and "apply" and their derivatives. Use synonyms and see if your arguments are any more effective.

Actually it just makes for more confusion - eg "How do you know that your knowledge of the knowable is known?"

Ah...you then are saying that your perception is in your head with no external stimuli other than the bible, hearsay and ceremony. Correct? I think so.

Must be those voices in your head that gave you that conclusion - or perhaps you have been eating to much of thatconceptual pizza again


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The point is that an electron is invisible and its movements are determined by the trail it emits while passing through a gas (at least that is one method) - to come to this point of directly perceiving an electron it requires a substantial level of epistemology - if one lacks that (like the famous high school drop out) one wil say things like "Believing that an electron exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail ”

This example is an aberration. And one with an expiry date. A high school drop out that has faith in an electron can be shown proof of the fact that his "faith" is justified and correct.

Depends entirely on the epistemology - like for instance evenif he has faith he still requires a qualified teacher - he cannot get such proof from the green grocer, even if they plead with thegrocer in all sincerity

By the by: copying my arguments and changing a word to TRY to justify yours is actually the effort that is destined to fail. Especially when I never solely relied on either testimony epistemology or ontology to prove anything. I am not this supposed high school drop out. Neither do I care about him.

Its also a good way to make people aware of the problems of their arguments

Fly across to my house (it'll be expensive) and I'll have one of my physics professors duplicate proof experiments for you. Can you make the same offer for any theist epistemology or testimony?

Yes - the problem is though, whether we are talking about physics or god,that there are two factors namely - the qualified teacher -and - the qualified student

- for instance if the high school dropout goes to the professer and tells him he is an egg head that has wasted over two thirds of his life writing crap in books and doesn't know nothin and blah blah blah then even though he couldhave actually learnt what an electron was (the teacher was qualified) he doesn't perceive what an electron is (the student is unqualified)

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise D

Even a poor person can be swayed by material nature - Even a rich person can resist it on the strength of their devotion to god - the reason is that its root is envy, which is not qualified by one's financial status

Utterly subjective. Who is to say what is "swayed" by material nature? What is ambition then?

They cannot be proven to a highschool dropout who is adverse to science

Yes it can. That's why it's logical

School teachers and parents as well

That's why it's most effective on children. Or weak-willed adults.

Your diatribe about someone selling a second hand car is also repetitive and also doesn't bear much relevance to what I was saying, hence why I seem to repeat myself I guess.

Ex-squeeze me? YOU brought up the comparison about the car, YOU added in "second-hand" late...and YOU insist on continuing it, instead of realising that having been a qualified corporate salesperson in years previous, with millions in revenue to back me up, I should have the proper epistemology to tell you that you are at the very least inaccurate in your comparison.

Try again but this time rely on logic and not direct perception, namely measuring this or that

How about 3.8 million in sales in my first year. Relying on logic and a smile since I had NO relationship with customers.

Maybe it is more progressive to use a different situation where the only obvious avenue of conviction is logic

Yes, let's try that...

Suppose you honey in a sealed jar and a person did not believe your testimonies that the honey was sweet - and also assume that for some strange reason they declared that you must prove to them that the honey is sweet without opening the lid - in other words when you only have logic as an avenue of explanation with no opportunity for participation it becomes a bit limiting -particularly when the obvious proceedure is to try it out

How do you have participation in god? There is no physicality of said entity to perceive. We cannot SEE any god. There are only the endorphins of belonging to a group mentality.

Honey is still a physical substance to test. Said stubborn individual can already see that the honey exists in a jar. (To reiterate: we can't see god exists).

You can disassemble honey with a centrifuge (or whatever) into its sugars, place them under a microscope and compare the cellular structure with known sugars and therefore make a logical assumption that since these known sugars have already been proven to be "sweet" then the honey must be "sweet". I admit it would more than likely be difficult to do this experiment without opening the jar, but not impossible. I've only studied chemistry to a certain level...would love a chemist or maybe a nutritionist to answer this one.

Of course - even in the presence of logic a person is free tobelieve whatever they want -it doesn't however indicate thattheir beliefs are logical

CORRECT. I said so. And to address a later question I happened to glance at first when "PG DN"ing you may try to pose different ideas to people...what I faulted you for is getting uppity when we tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree (i.e. using flights of fancy to attempt to "deconstruct" logic).

Then define the "moreness" of their theological training

Why? Your Ps indicate that levels of epistemology exist, since it depends on testimony and credibility. Therefore the "more" theological training that a person wields the more credible their testimony to enhance the epistemology. YOU however have used a very selective set of Ps (merely going to church) to arrive at a C that will only encompass a sample that would enhance your argument.

Let's cut to the chase...what we are trying to tell you is that testimony and epistemology in and of themselves cannot hold up without physical evidence. And since you have nothing with which to test, your stance is illogical. It may be your leap of faith, your personal belief, but it is still illogical.

Further, you seem to think that a philosophy is enough to break down logical arguments. All a philosophy can do is present other probabilities or possibilities, but without evidence to support...that's what they are...IDEAS. They CANNOT deconstruct logic all by themselves. Your thread therefore sets out to defeat itself from the start.

I haven't read anything further because the above is the finality of my point. Us going around in circles about the car and the student and the honey and the pizza and the priests and your credible epistemological ontology testimony is ineffectual, and honestly, if no-one couldn't show the above, well, we could go on like that ad infinitum. Seen?

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

Utterly subjective. Who is to say what is "swayed" by material nature? What is ambition then?

swayed by material nature means just that - one's ambitions get hijacked by desire for ephemeral things, in this case ,money - whether one is swayed by money has nothing to do with how much money one has - it has to do with how much money one feels one needs

They cannot be proven to a highschool dropout who is adverse to science
”
Yes it can. That's why it's logical

It might be logical to you, but not the drop out - generally you see that important truths in the field of science are not logically understood by anyone except a handful of people - like are your powers of logic generous enough to enable you to perform brain surgery?

Ex-squeeze me? YOU brought up the comparison about the car, YOU added in "second-hand" late...and YOU insist on continuing it, instead of realising that having been a qualified corporate salesperson in years previous, with millions in revenue to back me up, I should have the proper epistemology to tell you that you are at the very least inaccurate in your comparison.

The problem was not the car - the problem was that you always insisted on using means other than logic to sell it - so rather than try and get you to fit the format of the q, it seemed more practical to give an eg where the only avenue of explanation was logic


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Suppose you honey in a sealed jar and a person did not believe your testimonies that the honey was sweet - and also assume that for some strange reason they declared that you must prove to them that the honey is sweet without opening the lid - in other words when you only have logic as an avenue of explanation with no opportunity for participation it becomes a bit limiting -particularly when the obvious proceedure is to try it out
”

You can disassemble honey with a centrifuge (or whatever) into its sugars, place them under a microscope and compare the cellular structure with known sugars and therefore make a logical assumption that since these known sugars have already been proven to be "sweet" then the honey must be "sweet". I admit it would more than likely be difficult to do this experiment without opening the jar, but not impossible. I've only studied chemistry to a certain level...would love a chemist or maybe a nutritionist to answer this one.

But you are not allowed to open the jar so centrifuging is out of the question - and even if you develop some bizzare method to determine the sweetness of honey, it s hardly what a honey seller would advocate - in other words the easiest way to detect the sweetness of honey is to undertake the process of tasting - similarly the easiest way to understand the validity of god's existence is to undertake the process recommended for knowing him.

Then define the "moreness" of their theological training
”

Why?

because you brought it up in your previous statement
"You conveniently left out that I mentioned that some athiests have more theological training than simply going to church. I'll skip that one til you refine it. "

Your Ps indicate that levels of epistemology exist, since it depends on testimony and credibility. Therefore the "more" theological training that a person wields the more credible their testimony to enhance the epistemology.

Actually I used the word "correct" epistemology not "more" - I never said that if you spend more time with an incorrect epistemology it grants success

YOU however have used a very selective set of Ps (merely going to church) to arrive at a C that will only encompass a sample that would enhance your argument.

Its your argument that going to church alone is sufficient to determine 100% success in theistic endeavours

Let's cut to the chase...what we are trying to tell you is that testimony and epistemology in and of themselves cannot hold up without physical evidence.

I know - by training one becomes qualified to work with the "physical" object

And since you have nothing with which to test, your stance is illogical. It may be your leap of faith, your personal belief, but it is still illogical.

It appears illogical because you never began the training, or if you did only on a very neophyte level

Further, you seem to think that a philosophy is enough to break down logical arguments. All a philosophy can do is present other probabilities or possibilities, but without evidence to support...that's what they are...IDEAS. They CANNOT deconstruct logic all by themselves. Your thread therefore sets out to defeat itself from the start.

Erm .... logic is a sub catergory of philosophy

I haven't read anything further because the above is the finality of my point. Us going around in circles about the car and the student and the honey and the pizza and the priests and your credible epistemological ontology testimony is ineffectual, and honestly, if no-one couldn't show the above, well, we could go on like that ad infinitum. Seen?

Remember baby steps ..... remember baby steps ..... remember baby steps
baby steps .... baby steps ... baby steps