A colossal accident?

[Soldier_Of_God]

Could an arrest be made without empirical evidence?

Yes. It’s called circumstancial evidence. Inferences are made to come to a conclusion.

 

[James1215]

Not so. Why should it engender equal treatment if one is a parody while the other is a steadfast view with a theology? According to your reasoning, my claim to be ruler of the world should be duteously verified by all nations.

It would be comparable to the claims of religion, if you said you ruled invisibly over the world and we’d only know about it if we believed in you and then joined you after death. Isn’t this roughly what Jesus said?

 

[James1215]

Yes. It’s called circumstancial evidence. Inferences are made to come to a conclusion.

I am again out of my depth, but isn’t the cry of ‘circumstantial evidence’ usually made to destroy a position in court? Well even if not, circumstances are empirical, not metaphysical. Also, inferences are inferences from something. That thing is going to be empirical…

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It would be comparable to the claims of religion, if you said you ruled invisibly over the world and we’d only know about it if we believed in you and then joined you after death.

Unforunately, your understanding of Christian faith is incorrect.

Isn’t this roughly what Jesus said?

Please provide a source.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I am again out of my depth, but isn’t the cry of ‘circumstantial evidence’ usually made to destroy a position in court? Well even if not, circumstances are empirical, not metaphysical. Also, inferences are inferences from something. That thing is going to be empirical…

Circumstantial evidence can be used in civil cases to establish liability. In criminal law it is used to established guilt through logical inference. It can be also used by the defense undermine the burden of proof concept but it is not in of itself a refutation of a position.

 

[James1215]

Unforunately, your understanding of Christian faith is incorrect.

Please provide a source.

Well, if Jesus did not say that He invisibly rules over everything and that we’d find out after death if we joined Him, why do Christians believe it?

Of course I am prepared to shift my knowledge of Christianity according to evidence, though.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey,

I will answer this post but I need to know why you are rejecting the demonstrations of the logical contradiction, the admission by Russell that all formulations of propositions that make knowledge reliant on experience are necessarily logical contradictions and the verification of that fact that lead to the demise of these epistemic theories some 60 years ago. You are telling every expert on the subject in the world that they are wrong you are right while denying direct demonstrations to the opposite effect. Without telling me that you feel a certain way, or repeating any of your arguments, what is the rational basis for your rejection of what has long been considered a dead subject?

 

[James1215]

Circumstantial evidence can be used in civil cases to establish liability. In criminal law it is used to established guilt through logical inference. It can be also used by the defense undermine the burden of proof concept but it is not in of itself a refutation of a position.

I still think that all matters of law ultimately come down to interpreting empirical life in terms of legal concepts, therefore that the example of criminal justice does not support a non-empirical route to gaining knowledge.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Well, if Jesus did not say that He invisibly rules over everything and that we’d find out after death if we joined Him, why do Christians believe it?

Of course I am prepared to shift my knowledge of Christianity according to evidence, though.

Again, you have not backed up your assertions. Please provide a citation for position.

 

[James1215]

I will answer this post but I need to know why you are rejecting the demonstrations of the logical contradiction, the admission by Russell that all formulations of propositions that make knowledge reliant on experience are necessarily logical contradictions and the verification of that fact that lead to the demise of these epistemic theories some 60 years ago. You are telling every expert on the subject in the world that they are wrong you are right while denying direct demonstrations to the opposite effect. Without telling me that you feel a certain way, or repeating any of your arguments, what is the rational basis for your rejection of what has long been considered a dead subject?

I do not think my position is that of a failed empiricism, and think that BR can be misunderstood and misapplied to the issue of experience.

 

[James1215]

Again, you have not backed up your assertions. Please provide a citation for position.

Ok. God = ruler over everything. Heaven = joining Him after death, God = invisible in His omnipotence/omniscience and supposed characteristics of being outside time.

So while I cannot myself provide evidence that this is true, I don’t need to provide evidence that this is believed. On these limited points, there can be a comparison with the FSM.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

inductive evidence, this is all that is necessary for demonstrating its consistency.

Inductive evidence cannot prove consistency by definition. You run into the Black Swan problem.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I still think that all matters of law ultimately come down to interpreting empirical life in terms of legal concepts, therefore that the example of criminal justice does not support a non-empirical route to gaining knowledge.

Circumstantial evidence is solely predicated on inferences. Basically, this qualifies as is coming to a logical conclusions based on a premise, which is assumed to be true. All other forms of evidence is known as direct evidence. Both forms are used to initiate arrests.

 

[James1215]

Inductive evidence cannot prove consistency by definition. You run into the Black Swan problem.

No, consistency in that my position asks for it and receives it. If all I want is inductive evidence, and that’s all I get it would be better to attack inductive reasoning than the consistency of my position. Yes there may be a black swan and the sun may not rise again tomorrow, but if these possibilities are the best we can do, that is tough really. We may wish for greater certainty, but if we cannot get it, too bad.

 

[James1215]

Circumstantial evidence is solely predicated on inferences. Basically, this qualifies as is coming to a logical conclusions based on a premise, which is assumed to be true. All other forms of evidence is known as direct evidence. Both forms are used to initiate arrests.

Inferences are inferences from things, even if done by an extended and abstract process of reasoning. Otherwise there is no evidence to arrest/question! Ok, you are in a position of having no empirical evidence, can you solve the crime that’s going on in my room by inferences?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Ok. God = ruler over everything. Heaven = joining Him after death, God = invisible in His omnipotence/omniscience and supposed characteristics of being outside time.

So while I cannot myself provide evidence that this is true, I don’t need to provide evidence that this is believed. On these limited points, there can be a comparison with the FSM.

Unforunately, you haven’t demonstrated anything but your individual understanding of Christian theology. You haven’t provided a single citation to back you assertion this is the essence of Christian theology.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I agree that no-one (hopefully) believes in the FSM, but if they did, out of a delusion, what grounds would we have to counter them?..

Because he isn’t G-d of course. Do you know what G-d is? If you don’t know what G-d is you are certainly not an atheist. Any more than I could be a vegan, not knowing what a vegetable is. Please tell us what you think the definition of G-d is?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Inferences are inferences from things.

Inferences is an the process of deriving logical ends.
even if done by an extended and abstract process of reasoning. Otherwise there is no evidence to arrest/question! Ok, you are in a position of having no empirical evidence, can you solve the crime that’s going on in my room by inferences?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Inferences are inferences from things.

Inferences are derived from reasoning.

Otherwise there is no evidence to arrest/question! Ok, you are in a position of having no empirical evidence, can you solve the crime that’s going on in my room by inferences?

Reasoning by inference requires information. By providing insufficient information doesn’t invalidate that inferences are used to provide convictions. Regardless, in civil cases it’s possible to convict solely on circumstancial evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… Much of what Krauss said was to do with various sorts of ‘nothing’…

There is no such thing as “nothing”, its a logical contradiction. The empty set is itself a thing. No-thing exists = Some-thing exists, is an obvious contradiction. Further, any talk of particles presupposes a universe exists.