Would you peel the skin off of a newborn baby?

[Enmos]

I say, yes. IF you rephrase your statements with the fact that they are hypothetical, e.g.

IF justice is relative to power
AND there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there WOULD exist an absolute justice.

Concluding in a absolute way (your first phrasing) fits my criteria for invalidity otherwise. In order to come to a VALID conclusion, your premises must be known and valid. The internal logic of the conclusion is inescapable.

I think the problem is this. If the logic of your statements is unassailable, no matter what the premises, then your conclusion will be perfectly logical. The VALIDITY of your conclusion is however very subject to the validity of the premises.

See?

Yeah, I see.
So LG is just shittin me..

 

[superluminal]

Yeah, I see.
So LG is just shittin me..

Of course!

 

[Enmos]

falsifiable claims only work in the realm of the empiricism
if you want to argue that this spells the limits for truth, you are left with a world view that doesn't include consciousness, the mind, and a host of other states of being - eg wrath, envy, love etc - what to speak of god

Not without, just viewed differently.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't. You well know that as an atheist I make no claims for or against god(s).

I guess it must be my duty to remind you of the limits of your ideology from time to time

I only ask you to support your claims FOR a god with a modicum of scientific evidence and not delve into purely subjective rambling.

like say, repeatability?

 

[lightgigantic]

Not without, just viewed differently.

really?
how do you falsify consciousness?

 

[Enmos]

really?
how do you falsify consciousness?

I don't.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course!

seems like you are not shy about determining the truth of your claims in everyone's audience

 

[superluminal]

I guess it must be my duty to remind you of the limits of your ideology from time to time

And me of yours.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't.

so you do have a "without"

 

[superluminal]

seems like you are not shy about determining the truth of your claims in everyone's audience

Of course not!

 

[Enmos]

so you do have a "without"

Huh?

 

[lightgigantic]

And me of yours.

superluminal
“
Originally Posted by Enmos
Yeah, I see.
So LG is just shittin me..
”
Of course!

time for a reminder

how can you discuss issues of delusion without a decent model of truth?

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course not!

you admit you can't invalidate/validate a claim yet its still sound to label it delusional
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Huh?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
falsifiable claims only work in the realm of the empiricism
if you want to argue that this spells the limits for truth, you are left with a world view that doesn't include consciousness, the mind, and a host of other states of being - eg wrath, envy, love etc - what to speak of god
”
Not without, just viewed differently.

 

[Enmos]

Those are all subjective concepts. And do not exist objectively.

 

[lightgigantic]

Those are all subjective concepts. And do not exist objectively.

so you have a conclusion
let's hear your premises?

 

[Enmos]

so you have a conclusion
let's hear your premises?

I'm too tired for this now, read this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74115

 

[superluminal]

how can you discuss issues of delusion without a decent model of truth?

I have a decent model of truth. One you seem immune from. It's called empiricism. The ultimate arbiter of truth is the mind as informed by the senses. There is no "direct perception" as you call it. You can form all of the ideas you want. But none of them represent a "higher truth" than can be verified by empirical data.

That's my model of truth.

And just who are you to discount my model of truth as not being "decent"? My model has yielded every aspect of the world you know. Yours has yielded nothing but the equivalent of endless cocktail party chit-chat.

Deny that.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have a decent model of truth. One you seem immune from. It's called empiricism. The ultimate arbiter of truth is the mind as informed by the senses. There is no "direct perception" as you call it. You can form all of the ideas you want. But none of them represent a "higher truth" than can be verified by empirical data.

That's my model of truth.

And just who are you to discount my model of truth as not being "decent"? My model has yielded every aspect of the world you know. Yours has yielded nothing but the equivalent of endless cocktail party chit-chat.

Deny that.

problem is that your senses are imperfect and can only deal with relative things like carving rock and making computers - to say the least it doesn't explain everything we know - it doesn't even explain how we know - so its not clear what you are so proud of ....

 

[Enmos]

problem is that your senses are imperfect and can only deal with relative things like carving rock and making computers - to say the least it doesn't explain everything we know - it doesn't even explain how we know - so its not clear what you are so proud of ....

Now go read my thread..