I believe...

[superluminal]

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?

Duh.

I can observe physical things and effects without making any analysis of it whatsoever.

LG likes to talk about electrons and how I can't prove to him that they exist. That's just fine. But I can observe sparks, lightning, magnetism, etc. But there's SOMETHING there begging for an explanation. Real, repeatable effects and physical evidence.

What empirical evidence is there about the universe that excludes all other possibilities and leads unquestionably to god(s)?

 

[superluminal]

Do you understand that to attribute any significance to whatever is detected with the senses requires a departure from empiricism?

Duh.

You and sam. Reading comprehension 101 please. I've said this in this thread enough. I won't respond to any more willful stupidity regarding my understanding of the need for empiricism, synthesis and analysis.

The irony is that what you are trying to discard with your statements is what your premises operate out of

See above.

You claim a teapot (god?) exists in a certain spot and with certain attributes.

Please provide empirical evidence of the teapot, and then we will follow with lots of logical analysis. 'k?

Or will you give me an empirically baseless logical path (with no reference to real effects please - that would be too empiricist) to prove with certainty that your teapot exists?

 

[S.A.M.]

Duh.

I can observe physical things and effects without making any analysis of it whatsoever.

Yeah, of course you can. No imagination required.

 

[superluminal]

Yeah, of course you can. No imagination required.

Poor sam. I really am out-gunning you here aren't I. I don't mean to embarrass you.

It's ok. I'll ask again. We'll go slow.

Show me your teapot or some scientific observations of your teapot. Then we can use all of our imagination, creativity and general intelligence to synthesize worldviews, analyze teapot-dynamics, and develop logical theories of teapotology.

Right?

I mean, we wouldn't want to waste our precious and limited time on this earth debating the merits or drawbacks of something we never even showed to exist, would we?

Oh, wait...

 

[S.A.M.]

I mean, we wouldn't want to waste our precious and limited time on this earth debating the merits or drawbacks of something we never even showed to exist, would we?

No which is why we don't analyse everything, like you said.

Only that which we are "trained to recognise". By er, brainwashing.

 

[lightgigantic]

You claim a teapot (god?) exists in a certain spot and with certain attributes.

really?
Well I claim that the president exists in a certain spot (the white house)

Please provide empirical evidence of the teapot, and then we will follow with lots of logical analysis. 'k?

Go to the white house front door and say "I am here to see the president"

Or will you give me an empirically baseless logical path (with no reference to real effects please - that would be too empiricist) to prove with certainty that your teapot exists?

If we can't even empirically validate the president with your methods, clearly they are pretty useless for drawing the up the parameters of logical observation in the real world.
:shrug:

 

[superluminal]

really?
Well I claim that the president exists in a certain spot (the white house)

Go to the white house front door and say "I am here to see the president"


If we can't even empirically validate the president with your methods, clearly they are pretty useless for drawing the up the parameters of logical observation in the real world.
:shrug:

WTF? We certainly CAN validate the existence of the president. Throwing in political/societal blockages is a pretty weak approach. Is there any physical law that prevents us from observing the president? If we take away the artificial constructs of the Secret Service, could we verify the president?

Or is there some Teapot Secret Service that prevents us from observing it?

You make me laugh. You can't seem to be serious for even a minute.

You don't misunderstand my position at all. You're just not that stupid. You are, however, terrified of making a simple admission (like all religiosos) regarding the true disposition of your Teapot.

A shame, really.

 

[superluminal]

No which is why we don't analyse everything, like you said.

Did I say that? I don't mind analyzing anything. Unless it's an analysis of a claim of existence for something that has no evidence to start with. No starting point. It's all just tea party banter otherwise.

Only that which we are "trained to recognise". By er, brainwashing.

Really? You mean like invisible gods? Hmmm... And here I thought you were a religious person...

 

[lightgigantic]

WTF? We certainly CAN validate the existence of the president. Throwing in political/societal blockages is a pretty weak approach. Is there any physical law that prevents us from observing the president?

probably about 15 doors

If we take away the artificial constructs of the Secret Service, could we verify the president?

There's got to be easier ways to verify the president, don't you think?

Or is there some Teapot Secret Service that prevents us from observing it?

Nah
One could just be a stubborn bastard and keep on saying "wtf? you want me to go to my aunties to see a supposed teapot?" or the like

You make me laugh. You can't seem to be serious for even a minute.

You don't misunderstand my position at all. You're just not that stupid. You are, however, terrified of making a simple admission (like all religiosos) regarding the true disposition of your Teapot.

Your wonderful (empirical) calculation of god is like calculating that all that is required to see the president is to open 15 doors

A shame, really.

I'll say ...

 

[superluminal]

probably about 15 doors

There's got to be easier ways to verify the president, don't you think?

Just trying to keep it simple...

Nah
One could just be a stubborn bastard and keep on saying "wtf? you want me to go to my aunties to see a supposed teapot?" or the like

If it was a REALLY important teapot with universe-shaking ramifications, I'd go. You know I would.

Your wonderful (empirical) calculation of god is like calculating that all that is required to see the president is to open 15 doors

How can my calculation be empirical? That would be the analysis part my friend...

All I'm asking for is the equivalent of a spark (like for electrons - whatever they may be) as evidence for SOMETHING unusual gong on. Something I can analyze, synthesize, logicize, computize, etc...

 

[lightgigantic]

If it was a REALLY important teapot with universe-shaking ramifications, I'd go. You know I would.

just like as in the case of the president, there are other factors aside from hauling your ass to location "X"

How can my calculation be empirical? That would be the analysis part my friend...

If you calculate that all that requires to see the president is to open 15 doors, that's a calculation.
An analysis would be something like coming to the conclusion that its a stupid method

All I'm asking for is the equivalent of a spark (like for electrons - whatever they may be) as evidence for SOMETHING unusual gong on. Something I can analyze, synthesize, logicize, computize, etc...

given that such empiricical inquisitiveness is always bracketed by unknowingness at the macro and micro level, you already have it.
:shrug:

 

[superluminal]

just like as in the case of the president, there are other factors aside from hauling your ass to location "X"

Yarrrgggggg! You mean to tell me that I can't even - metaphorically speaking - see a spark that indicates that there might be something, let's call it an electron, there?

If you calculate that all that requires to see the president is to open 15 doors, that's a calculation.
An analysis would be something like coming to the conclusion that its a stupid method

Yah, whatever.

given that such empiricical inquisitiveness is always bracketed by unknowingness at the macro and micro level, you already have it.
:shrug:

What does that even mean? Yes, I start out not knowing. I see a spark. I go "WTF was that?". I see that I can reproduce the spark by walking across the carpet, but only when the humidity is below 30% relative. And so on, until I have a whole set of observations that bracket and delimit this 'spark' phenomenon. Now what?

Do I ask you again to metaphorically show me some tea leaves trailing from your teapot? Can I do some tea-leaf measurements? Weigh them? Count them? Put samples in a mass spectrometer? Deduce, by analysis, that they must have been in a vessel that contained hot water at some point? Let's call it 'teapot' just to give it a name.

You mean I can't do any of that? No quantitative analysis of physical 'teapot' evidence? Because there is none?

Bummer, dude.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yarrrgggggg! You mean to tell me that I can't even - metaphorically speaking - see a spark that indicates that there might be something, let's call it an electron, there?

No
I am saying that powers of observation are housed in the observer - so according to where, when and how you haul your ass will influence your observations (what to speak of your analysis of an absence of observation ... which is your favourite playing card in the religion forum)

What does that even mean? Yes, I start out not knowing. I see a spark. I go "WTF was that?". I see that I can reproduce the spark by walking across the carpet, but only when the humidity is below 30% relative. And so on, until I have a whole set of observations that bracket and delimit this 'spark' phenomenon. Now what?

then you are left with the mystery of why particles act the way they do (which ultimately comes to the threshold of the micro barrier).

If you had posed some problem with astronomy or weather, you probably would have come against the macro barrier.

IOW its the nature of a metonymic (or tacit) view that it is shrouded in mystery at both ends of the spectrum (macro and micro) .... ie to say, it never gets explicit.

Do I ask you again to metaphorically show me some tea leaves trailing from your teapot? Can I do some tea-leaf measurements? Weigh them? Count them? Put samples in a mass spectrometer? Deduce, by analysis, that they must have been in a vessel that contained hot water at some point? Let's call it 'teapot' just to give it a name.

well even if you want to take tea leaves, get micro enough on them and you will be stumped
:shrug:

You mean I can't do any of that? No quantitative analysis of physical 'teapot' evidence? Because there is none?

Bummer, dude.

"teapot", much like "tea leaves" are tacit terms

to quote Friedrich Waismann (a key player of the Vienna Circle ... just in case you start to arch your back ...)

If I had to describe [this] right hand of mine, which I am now holding up, I may say different things of it: I may state its size, its shape, its color, its tissue, the chemical compound of its bones, its cells, and perhaps add some more particulars; but, however far I go, I shall never reach a point where my description will be completed: logically speaking, it is always possible to extend the description by adding some detail or other.

I mean what to speak of the mystery of god, you haven't come to grips with the mysteries of teapots

 

[superluminal]

Oh LG, You are one tiring sob.

You can't even show me a spark to get me started without 'going micro or macro' on it.

Do you not see that with your kind of hyperbole it's no wonder that people all over the world are steadily but surely either rejecting the nonsense you spout or embracing a fanatical extreme that precludes any discussion whatsoever?

You and your kind are the genesis of your own demise. If you can't offer even the slightest real hook into a reality that you see as obvious, all of your rambling is for naught. And is rightly described as BS.

Good night.

 

[soullust]

i am your new god the Almighty soullust, now believe in me and send me gifts are i will consume your soul.

 

[superluminal]

i am your new god the Almighty soullust, now believe in me and send me gifts are i will consume your soul.

Fine. You win. LG has worn me down. What address should I use for your appeasement O lord? *sighs in abject defeat*

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh LG, You are one tiring sob.

You can't even show me a spark to get me started without 'going micro or macro' on it.

you've already got it with a teapot

Do you not see that with your kind of hyperbole it's no wonder that people all over the world are steadily but surely either rejecting the nonsense you spout or embracing a fanatical extreme that precludes any discussion whatsoever?

err ... yeah, your average quantum mechanic knows as much about philosophy as your average car mechanic

You and your kind are the genesis of your own demise. If you can't offer even the slightest real hook into a reality that you see as obvious, all of your rambling is for naught. And is rightly described as BS.

Good night.

If you were a tenth as philosophically inquisitive as you are intent on dumbing down religion, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

What empirical evidence is there about the universe that excludes all other possibilities and leads unquestionably to god(s)?

It depends on why you are asking this question (and others), and what you wish to achieve by obtaining an answer to it.

So which is it?

If it was a REALLY important teapot with universe-shaking ramifications, I'd go. You know I would.

You already know that there are universe-shaking ramifications for the topic you are discussing - this is why you are discussing them. (Unless you wish to claim you are irrational.)

You and your kind are the genesis of your own demise. If you can't offer even the slightest real hook into a reality that you see as obvious, all of your rambling is for naught.

But you are already hooked into that reality. You keep discussing these topics - this is proof that you are hooked.

You already are hooked. But so far, it doesn't seem to have been a very pleasant experience for you.
And everyone in their right mind would want to make it as pleasant as possible, don't they?
So why not work toward that?