A colossal accident?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James1215 said:
Lol, on this topic, I reckon St Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t be able to justify this, if by ‘sense’ he was referring to sense perception:

“Most men seem to live according to sense rather than reason.”

Given that it was sense perception Jesus was relying upon, and reason which makes us doubt miracles. This demonstrates that one cannot try to counter a position by defining the other person’s terms, or trying to fix them in a way you like.
Click to expand...
Well, it does make convincing them all that harder. 😃
 
I reckon that all evidence has to have an empirical basis, with unlimited reasoning if necessary, and on second thoughts it was reason I was opposing to the empirical, when it should be the unempirical that opposed it. So yes, all evidence has to be always empirical when we try to have knowledge. Sounds wonderfully absolute, but it is logically tautological because I think knowledge is linked to the perceptible.

Perhaps there are other ways of having reason to believe in non-empirical statements, but I think there is a meaningful distinction here from knowledge, and I don’t think we can actually achieve ‘reason to believe in non-empirical statements’, so I’d be grateful to see it in action.
 
Yes you are right that I think the empirical is all we have to interact with the material world, that is clear from a re-reading of your question. However, my initial position was that claims need evidence, in which there is room for the one branch dealing with empirical (knowledge) and another dealing with the non-empirical. I do have a low opinion of the existence, plausibility or meaningfulness of the latter though.
 
Lets use the correct definitions of words and reveal what your position actually means.
James1215 said:
…My view is that if one wants to make a claim, one should have evidence (ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/
Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.) for it, and that knowledge(**knowl·edge/ˈnälij/**Noun
  1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
  2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.)
    is the (awareness of the truth of statements)=(cer·tain/ˈsərtn/
    Adjective: Known for sure; established beyond doubt.) made about perceptible(per·cep·ti·ble
    adjective /pərˈseptəbəl/ 
    (esp. of a slight movement or change of state) Able to be seen or noticed
    - a perceptible decline in public confidence) reality.
Click to expand...
Using the correct definitons of word reveals the same contradiction.
 
James1215 said:
Lol, on this topic, I reckon St Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t be able to justify this, if by ‘sense’ he was referring to sense perception:

“Most men seem to live according to sense rather than reason.”

Given that it was sense perception Jesus was relying upon, and reason which makes us doubt miracles. This demonstrates that one cannot try to counter a position by defining the other person’s terms, or trying to fix them in a way you like.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to make up the meaning of words. If you refuse to use the dictionary definitions it seems like you are just trying to avoid admitting that your position is wrong by making up private definitions. That doesn’t fool anyone.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
Lets use the correct definitions of words and reveal what your position actually means.

Using the correct definitons of word reveals the same contradiction.
Click to expand...
Nope, I don’t think the definition tells us enough to settle this disagreement. It says that evidence is what you use to support a belief. Well, duh, but should you support a belief and how? Is it possible to require that beliefs are supported? Too many questions, and perhaps naive to think that a general dictionary is adequate to the solution of philosophical problems which are about questioning and establishing meaning, not just accepting and using.
 
James1215 said:
I reckon that all evidence has to have an empirical basis,
Click to expand...
How do you explain all the demonstrations that its not?
… because I think…
Click to expand...
Here is another issue, you seem to think that your personal opinion carries some weight philosophically. If you can’t show its true then
so I’d be grateful to see it in action.
Click to expand...
Do a math problem and doubt anything exists. Either demonstrates it in action.
 
On definitions. If they are gospel, note the definition of Christian (noun):
  1. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
  2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
  3. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
Nowhere does it say this: ‘Christian: a person who knows the truth and who is therefore a Catholic.’
 
James1215 said:
Nope, I don’t think the definition …
Click to expand...
So you refuse to use words according to their standard definitions? Fine, I will just make a disclaimer on each post for the lurkers and then restate your arguments in standard terminology. Like I just did.
 
All evidence does have to be empirical where it provides for the truth of statements about perceptible reality. That much is obvious.

As to saying ‘I think’ - that is because I am honest enough to say that these are my thoughts, not necessarily the Ultimate Truth. I am not arguing from opinion though, but giving reasons and examples.

As to maths and doubt, maths does not tell us about reality and doubt is empirically evident.

(Just to add - I might even agree with William Lane Craig on the maths issue (just maybe). He says that while infinity works in maths, it cannot work in real life because contradictions not permitted in calculations would not be preventable in real life. Still skeptical about that, but it might be something you agree on.)
 
James1215 said:
On definitions. If they are gospel, note the definition of Christian (noun):
  1. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
  2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
  3. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
Nowhere does it say this: ‘Christian: a person who knows the truth and who is therefore a Catholic.’
Click to expand...
You’re desperate not to be pinned down to standard definitions. Why? If your argument is really better than all the experts, then surely you have nothing to fear by using the standard definition of words.
 
Well the experts in the criminal justice system are with me. Anyway, for all the lurkers I say this.

“Lurker” is a horrible word for such a noble activity as reading public posts in a public forum. I trust that you will support my view with absolutely no attention to the fact that I support yours. Finally, I would like to note the irony that we only believe you are there because of the empirical evidence of increasing view counts, so thank you for your participation:thumbsup:

😉
 
James1215 said:
Finally, I would like to note the irony that we only believe you are there because of the empirical evidence of increasing view counts, so thank you for your participation.
Click to expand...
The real irony is the evidence is mathematically based and not empirical. 😃
 
James1215 said:
All evidence does have to be empirical where it provides for the truth of statements about perceptible reality. That much is obvious.
Click to expand...
I interpret this statement as “All evidence does have to be physical where it provides for the truth of statements about the physical world”. That much is obvious" Not all evidence need be physical. As demonstrated by the definition.
ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/
Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
As to saying ‘I think’ - that is because I am honest enough to say that these are my thoughts, not necessarily the Ultimate Truth. I am not arguing from opinion though, but giving reasons and examples.
Click to expand...
Those reasons and examples are your opinion.
As to maths and doubt, maths does not tell us about reality
Click to expand...
2+2=1. As Frege pointed out, one can do math on imaginary quantities without reference to the empirical. Notice that the quantities operated on need not be objects to arrive a true statement. A straight line does not exist in nature. Yet here it is **y = mx + b **, a true statement about an object that has no natural analog. I could list a million examples.
and doubt is empirically evident.
Click to expand...
Then show me the empirical evidence of Dubito🙂
 
James1215 said:
Well the experts in the criminal justice system are with me.
Click to expand...
No they don’t as I already pointed out from my personal experience. But since you always know better than all the experts no need to take my considerable experience to heart.:rolleyes:
 
warpspeedpetey said:
No they don’t as I already pointed out from my personal experience. But since you always know better than all the experts no need to take my considerable experience to heart.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Given that you are making a claim to truth based on the evidence of experience, I will give it some thought;)
 
James1215 said:
Lol! It’s based on people accessing a server or something technical, which is more than just maths, it’s maths counting something empirical.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the evidence you’ve been presented is mathematically derived and the knowledge is mathematical. Anything else is mere inference on your part. 😉
 
warpspeedpetey said:
You seem to think that is somehow significant.
Click to expand...
I would have expected you to stay away from empirically evidencing something, given that you argue that is false/contradictory. Why not use pure reason to demonstrate that pure reason provides knowledge? I think your reliance upon experience here is an honest reflection of how people think, and so I would not have picked you up on it except for rhetorical purposes. It supports my argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top