I believe...
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
Stick to the cargo container sam. Small steps. It's not that complex unless you really have something to hide or are afraid of.
Err... no. I mean "Blah, Blah, Blah" actually. The entire preceding paragraph to which you were referring is representational of one thing only: The utter absurdity of the levels certain people will got to to obscure what is otherwise a fairly straightforward position, to wit: without some evidence of the sort we require for EVERYTHING else we engage in, your god(s) are fairy-tales.
or alternatively, the lengths people will go to for the sake of dumbing down an argument ...
No my dear, I mean some fundamental physical evidence for a claim of existence. This requires no a-priori abstraction or mathematical analysis. It's a simple act of observation. THEN we can abstract and logic ourselves silly.
Excuse me? "dumbing down"? You do realize that every profound discovery or insight in science was preceded with a simple question? Every one. And then someone began making observations.or alternatively, the lengths people will go to for the sake of dumbing down an argument ...
Huh? Do you go to this level of obfuscation when determining if the artichokes you're shopping for in the grocery store actually exist or not? You must spend a lot of time staring at things...
Being a rational person, I know very well that while I cannot always trust my senses, its not an obstacle to a good time. Besides, I don't like artichokes and I like blue blue skies and sunsets at the beach. I like logic and abstraction and do not consider empiricism to be the be all and end all of existence.
its just when you try and relegate such achievements purely to the realm of empiricism that it becomes dumbing down
:shrug:
I share this paragraph. Except, regarding claims of existence (for whatever) is not empiricism (whether in the form of repeatable observations or physical evidence) the ultimate arbiter of physical reality? Or are you proposing that god(s) are more akin to mathematical abstractions?
If that's true, and you claim no physical existence or effect of this abstraction other than in your mind, then I think we've settled it, yes?
But I'm not. Without the failure of the detection of the luminiferous ether and the finding that the motion of light is independent of its source (purely empirical endeavors) there would have been zero basis for Einstein's brilliant abstract and logical development of special relativity.
You all seem to be using the same discussion tactics that politicians use. Why keep making claims about what I do and do not "discard" when I've said no such thing?
Claims of existence? Empirically I claim blue skies and sunsets. Logically and mathematically, they don't exist. Empiricism has its ups and downs/ Sense experience by itself is so unreliable that it has to be controlled by model, variable and repetition as well as replication, before it can even be considered valid. And even then, we are left with the tree that fell in the forest which no one heard. Logically it made a noise, empirically, there is no evidence.
Which one do you believe?
Eh? Huh?
Logic and mathematics are tools of synthesis and analysis. Why do you guys keep mixing this shit up? Empiricism, logic, and mathematics are all required for a complete (well, as complete as it can be) understanding of reality.
You can certainly have abstract mathematical entities that describe no physical thing but are beautifully self consistent and logical. But that's not what you god folks are claiming. You NEED to start with an empirical foundation regarding claims of real existence.
You can't just "think" your god(s) into existence. Wait... That's exactly what you do! Ha!
Do you understand that to attribute any significance to whatever is detected with the senses requires a departure from empiricism?
The irony is that what you are trying to discard with your statements is what your premises operate out of
Ok.
Err... I don't get it. If the event is unobserved it doesn't even make it into the data set.
All metaphysical, psy101 questions aside, are you really arguing against empirical data as the starting point from which synthesis and analysis proceed, regarding claims of existence?
No I am pointing out that empiricism is a tool, just as logic is. Its not an end in itself. You still need the mind and the training to make sense of it. What do you think that training is?
Uh oh.
You are now professing a worldview that absolutely I do not share.
I am a realist. You exist regardless of whether I "think" about you or not. I fully understand that our perception of reality is a product of photons and tactile sensation as interpreted by a mass of neurons. However, I believe that it is generally and accurate perception as far as it goes.
Again, why the obsession with the existence of mental tools we use to refine our observations of reality?
We're talking about a simple question here. Does the teapot that you claim exists, exist? You cannot analyze your way to an answer. Why all the obfuscation?