House On Fire?

[snake river rufus]

if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference

You have, to date, provided only 1 reference. You are in no posistion to demand references from others.

 

[snake river rufus]

Since you have not challenged my post #96 as accurate source materal, may we take it for granted that you do accept these definitions?

Up to this point, your debating seems to be to simply throw unsupported accusations, and never to make a cited reference. This is unacceptable. Make one or no more than two points. Support them. Otherwise this boils down to a confusing bedlam.

 

[snake river rufus]

For the record and from the first link in post 96

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

 

[lightgigantic]

For the record and from the first link in post 96

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

here's an eg

 

[lightgigantic]

You have, to date, provided only 1 reference. You are in no posistion to demand references from others.

Since you have not challenged my post #96 as accurate source materal, may we take it for granted that you do accept these definitions?

Up to this point, your debating seems to be to simply throw unsupported accusations, and never to make a cited reference. This is unacceptable. Make one or no more than two points. Support them. Otherwise this boils down to a confusing bedlam.

actually I have provided two - and if you examine the context they were made you would see that they are comments about general states of affairs (IOW the texts that they come from are more detailed accounts of the extent of the situtation)

still, if you want to argue that a lack of philosophical understanding somehow isn't an impediment for a scientist making philosophical claims or that science has not fallen into the state of thinking that it can explain EVERYTHING, feel free to offer a few suggestions why (aside from words to the effect "Yr stinky 'n funny lookin 'n so is yr brother" etc etc)

 

[lightgigantic]

"examples don't illustrate definitions?
rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion
truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true.

when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"

Examples are ambiguous. Too open to different interpertations. If we cannot agree on the exact meaning of words,,

"rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion"
Not detailed enough. An insane man could make a wild guess that, accidently, turns out to be correct. But you could not call the person rational

then I guess he wouldn't be relying on premises like say a rational person would

"truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true."

Really? That is too broad to be meaningfull.

I would have thought most people could get it straight off the bat

Before we go any further, I'll request that you provide definitions (with links).


"when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"
You are mixing up to different meanings and trying to apply them 'willy nilly'. Unacceptable.

perhaps I am being a bit simplistic bu then you seem to have a remarkable talent for making the straight forward incomprehensible so I guess it was done in good measure

anyway, for what its worth, try logic - preferably the syllogistic variety for the sake of simplicity and truth .

After glancing at these, it appears that you have issues more with the truth of theism than the rationality of it ....

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sound premises is an issue of truthfulness
a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism
”
No. Sound premises are also an issue of truthfulness. As in they are based on honest evaluations of the facts as presented by honest admissions of what we know and don't know (based on scientific rigor).

so IOW you are saying sound premises are an issue of truthfulness?

“
electrons are also unseen.
”
No. Electrons are "seen" but not directly observed. The effects they produce are entirely prevalent and observable. The explanation for these effects has been solidly and consistently proven to be a small particle called an electron. This can be thoroughly trusted by untrained but interested laymen with the smallest bit of research into basic science. Unlike researching basic theology (as I have) there is no coherency or compelling foundational logic visible whatsoever.

glad you agree it involves issues of faith (for those outside of the arena of direct perception)

“
if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference
”
What? That religion as the explanation for the anything we see around us is baseless mythology? It's axiomatic my friend.

so basically your argument is "the claims of different religions are contradictory because it is an axiomatic fact"
should I attempt to find the end of your regress or simply accept your opinions in confidence?

“
interesting that you refer to the big bang
aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?)
”
No my poor scientifically ignorant friend. All actual cosmologists accept that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and evolved according to physical law. Some of the mechanisms are in debate, but the conclusion is unanimous.

In the same general way, there is a consensus amongst theists about the nature of god, but for some reason (perhaps your bias or lack of familiarity with the said field) you tend to digress

“
whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation?

”
One is guided by scientific rigor and the desire to find the actual reality of what is happening. The other is a hallmark of blind faith and wishful thinking.

Physics is a developing logical system of thinking whose foundations cannot be obtained by extraction from past experience according to some inductive methods, but come only by free fantasy.
-einstein

I see

Just a note. I brought up the BB because it is one of the greatest discoveries in science. And one of the most misunderstood by the general public. Despite what some nutters here may post, it's in fine shape and has extroadinary explanatory power. This does not mean that it is the be-all-end-all of the description of the universe. But whatever future descriptions arise, they won't be revealed by the bible, quran, or the BG.

and how do you know this?

sounds like yet another post dated cheque

I am often amazed that people can hold themselves as intelligent in science by sitting on the maxim "we don't know but we know"

:shrug:

 

[superluminal]

Oh well LG. I'll stay in my corner (the one that has actual measurable effects in the world) and you in yours. Good luck and all that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh well LG. I'll stay in my corner (the one that has actual measurable effects in the world) and you in yours. Good luck and all that.

the next q is whether there are any effects in this world that have causes you can't measure

 

[superluminal]

the next q is whether there are any effects in this world that have causes you can't measure

Good q.

Lets say there are. Take string theory. This postulates that all particles are made of (caused by) tiny string-like things vibrating in different ways in up to 11 total dimensions. This is a serious candidate for a "theory of everything". Does any serious physicist claim that string theory is true? No.

Why? Becaue currently we have no way to measure these little strings. We can't come close to the energy required to pin down their properties and determine which solution to the maths of string theory (if any) is correct.

So, by your own admission, there is so much that you can't measure about whatever god/entity/force you subscribe to, why do you invest so much authority in it? And if you claim "direct perception via training" as your answer, what level of egomania does it take to think that your subjective experience is anything other than a delusion or some other medical condition?

The egotism of theists is one of their more outstanding characteristics. At least atheists admit what we do and don't know.

You claim that you are really the humble ones because you bow and submit and give all of the credit for any damn thing you do to some god. When in reality your ego is such that you exalt yourselves above all else as the one and only favored creations of a universal creator who made the entire cosmos for your benefit. Astounding egocentrism.

 

[lightgigantic]

Good q.

Lets say there are. Take string theory. This postulates that all particles are made of (caused by) tiny string-like things vibrating in different ways in up to 11 total dimensions. This is a serious candidate for a "theory of everything". Does any serious physicist claim that string theory is true? No.

Why? Becaue currently we have no way to measure these little strings. We can't come close to the energy required to pin down their properties and determine which solution to the maths of string theory (if any) is correct.

So, by your own admission, there is so much that you can't measure about whatever god/entity/force you subscribe to, why do you invest so much authority in it? And if you claim "direct perception via training" as your answer, what level of egomania does it take to think that your subjective experience is anything other than a delusion or some other medical condition?

The egotism of theists is one of their more outstanding characteristics. At least atheists admit what we do and don't know.

You claim that you are really the humble ones because you bow and submit and give all of the credit for any damn thing you do to some god. When in reality your ego is such that you exalt yourselves above all else as the one and only favored creations of a universal creator who made the entire cosmos for your benefit. Astounding egocentrism.

I think you have missed the point

considering that everything must be capable of being measured (ie empiricism is the truth the light and the way) indicates the very faults you are perceiving in theists - subjectivity, egocentricity, artificial monopolization of knowledge etc

I have repeated the argument numerous times already, but just to recap in case you have forgotten

The vedas does not deny

1) within nature there are regularities;
2) knowing the regularities, one can predict certain events in nature;
3) thus a reliable body of knowledge about nature is useful;
4) such knowledge is taught in a language of numerical measurement.

Such knowledge gleaned through these means is called pratyaksa

The problem is that the universe is a display of the unlimited supreme and that humans are inherently limited in the following ways

1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

Thus to hold the words "reality" and "measurable" as synonymous is foolishness. this is to say that pratyaksa (empiricism) is limited, somewhat distinct from the phrase "completely useless".

IOW empiricism works fine for our relative working environment but is useless when it attempts to fill the unlimited dimensions of the macro or microcosm

 

[superluminal]

IOW empiricism works fine for our relative working environment but is useless when it attempts to fill the unlimited dimensions of the macro or microcosm

So please repeat for me how your theistic approach (direct perception) is validated without resorting to measurement of some kind? And how, with an imperfect organ like the brain, you could hope to achieve such a pristine direct perception?

Why is the brain, which processe this perception, not subject to the same limitations as any other empirically limited "device"?

 

[lightgigantic]

So please repeat for me how your theistic approach (direct perception) is validated without resorting to measurement of some kind? And how, with an imperfect organ like the brain, you could hope to achieve such a pristine direct perception?

Why is the brain, which processe this perception, not subject to the same limitations as any other empirically limited "device"?

to reiterate again, higher than the senses (empiricism) is the mind (rationalism) and higher than the mind is consciousness.

IOW on the platform of consciousness the use of the mind and senses is there, but consciousness is not approachable by empirical processes (you can't see what you are seeing with, although consciousness enables one to express the nature of seeing)

with theistic processes, you have the noumena of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses) interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))

 

[superluminal]

to reiterate again, higher than the senses (empiricism) is the mind (rationalism) and higher than the mind is consciousness.

IOW on the platform of consciousness the use of the mind and senses is there, but consciousness is not approachable by empirical processes (you can't see what you are seeing with, although consciousness enables one to express the nature of seeing)

with theistic processes, you have the noumena of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses) interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))

I'm sorry LG, but unless you can stop using hyperbole and oblique wording, I can't assess that last sentence as anything other than unsupported mystical jibberish.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm sorry LG, but unless you can stop using hyperbole and oblique wording, I can't assess that last sentence as anything other than unsupported mystical jibberish.

ok lets unpack it

with theistic processes, you have the noumena

noumena means ultimate cause

of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses)

so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness

interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))

and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm)

so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism.

Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable. theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.

 

[superluminal]

noumena means ultimate cause

Nice new word for me. Thanks!

so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness

I neat idea. Completely unsupported by facts though, you'll grant. Right?

and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm)

Another nifty idea without a shred of substance. Moving on...

so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism.

So, a couple of factually unsupported and substanceless statements say that empiricism can't assess factually unsupported and substanceless ideas. I completely agree.

Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable.

Ok. First, I disagree that empiricism take the latest adventures in discovery as the ultimate in the knowable. There are always new frontiers and the current is not limited by empiricist philosophy.

Secondly, empiricism as I understand it does not take the senses alone as the ultimate authority, but the intellect as informed by the senses. Yes? Ideas generated by the intellect as based on sound, measurable or directly inferrable phenomena.

theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.

That's all well and good, but how, without resort to measurement or objective verification of any kind, can you ever say any of your ideas are anything other than mental fabrications?

You can't. Well, you can say it, but you have no way to defend it in a world of senses and physical phenomena.

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
noumena means ultimate cause
”
Nice new word for me. Thanks!

hopefully its taken the oblique slant off things

“
so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness
”
I neat idea. Completely unsupported by facts though, you'll grant. Right?

and once again, facts are supported by practice and practice is supported by theory - hence my suggestion that we keep things civil by discussing the theory of it, since your current attempts at validating or invalidating anything on the topic are meaningless

“
and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm)
”
Another nifty idea without a shred of substance. Moving on...

ditto above

“
so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism.
”
So, a couple of factually unsupported and substanceless statements say that empiricism can't assess factually unsupported and substanceless ideas. I completely agree.

no

even if you examine empiricism on its own merits it doesn't do the job

.... unless you can explain how working out of these limitations

1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

enables entrance to the macro/microcosm
:shrug:

“
Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable.
”
Ok. First, I disagree that empiricism take the latest adventures in discovery as the ultimate in the knowable. There are always new frontiers and the current is not limited by empiricist philosophy.

thus the new frontiers represent the latest version of the knowable

Secondly, empiricism as I understand it does not take the senses alone as the ultimate authority, but the intellect as informed by the senses. Yes? Ideas generated by the intellect as based on sound, measurable or directly inferrable phenomena.

the more it is inferred, the further it moves away from empiricism and into rationalism - ie dealing with concepts and not necessarily facts - for instance your inability to even discuss what are presented as theoretical concepts about god indicates that you are deeply dyed by empiricism and less by philosophy

“
theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.
”
That's all well and good, but how, without resort to measurement or objective verification of any kind, can you ever say any of your ideas are anything other than mental fabrications?

there are lots of things that are verified without measurement - eg justice, love, etc

these things are qualified by their qualities, and in this way take on an objective form - for instance suppose someone punched you in the stomach and repeated kicked you in the teeth while you were on the floor in a pool of blood. If, when you asked them why they did that, they said "because I love you", you could detect something irregular between their activities and their words because "love" exists as an objective form

You can't. Well, you can say it, but you have no way to defend it in a world of senses and physical phenomena.

thats because the world of the senses and physical phenomena is not absolute or complete - the senses are limited and manifestations of a more subtle phenomena and so to is the physical world