Wantsronian just thinks its cool to demand that everything be tested. Its easy to demand this. “Hey, I don’t like your belief! Where’s your test?! Prove it!”
Okay - it’s what good scientists do. An argument based on pedantry just wastes everybody’s time.
How do you know what I’m assuming? It’s all very well for you to use mealy-mouthed rhetoric to point out that ultimately, science can’t prove itself, but the fact remains, as I’ve pointed out on another thread, that science works and works consistently. So inasfar as we can know anything, our only experience of reliable, consistent knowledge, falls to science - or more accurately, the scientific method. Pointing out that science is ultimately self-confirming (ignoring its success) doesn’t actually add any weight to any other method of knowledge acquisition. It’s like you’re saying, “Science can’t prove itself, therefore philosophical doctrines are just as likely to be true.” Which is clearly nonsense.
Well, “buddy,” as I have already pointed out, these are not good enough to show beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of something which you claim has influence and power over our material world. Perhaps, as an experiment, you can use one (or some, or all) of the methods you list, to hit me with your best argument for God’s existence. It’s a nice list, you should be able to prove (please don’t waste time arguing semantics - you know what I mean) that God exists, right?
I’m aware of those arguments. They aren’t good enough because they are easily refutable. God does require empirical evidence, because he allegedly interacts with, and changes, our physical environment. God as a concept requires little or no justification, and you can philosophize until the cows come home. But when you say “God made the world,” or “God hears your thoughts” then you better be able to prove it, empirically - because that’s the level of evidence that’s required.
No - and I have not stated there is no objective fact. I’ve just stated that we have no evidence of one.
You know what I mean - if you have to attack my terminology then I’ll just assume you don’t have the means to counter my arguments
Stupid argument. If there is such a thing as objective morality, then of course people’s opinions can change. The fact that people’s opinions change don’t make it true that there’s an objective morality. Justice is what we perceive it to be - there is no evidence for any other ultimate standard of justice.
You can hover around ad hominem if you like, but your comment doesn’t seem to have any relation to what I posted. So I’m a bit confused. Maybe you can start by showing me why my criterion of existence is misunderstood?In what way am I simplifying it?
You think there’s the same level of evidence for God, as there is for electrons? Your post implies that you consider yourself to be more intelligent than me - how about you use that devastating intellect to prove that God exists, rather than sniping at the wording I use as if you didn’t know exactly what I mean?
Well, that told me. Syntax says X, therefore X. Now, if only that were all that was required for something to be true…
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position, not to mention a massive presumption on your part regarding my motivation.
Perhaps you could identify the post where I’ve stated that everything untestable doesn’t exist?
Every scientific theory so far believed up to the current ones we believe now have turned out to be false. So utility and truth come apart, and utility is NO guide to what is true or even LIKELY to be true. It simply doesn’t matter how useful a theory is. Every theory in the past was useful. So on your line of reasoning, every theory would be true? But this is absurd because each theory says contradictory things. So the question is:
Strawman. I never even said this. I said there are other forms of justification *just as *reliable as scientific justification. I didn’t say IF scientific justification is groundless (which it is) THEN other forms of justification are more reliable. Wrong.
Oh really? So the logical truth ~(A is larger than B and B is larger than A)] is not known to be true beyond a reasonable doubt? How about the metaphysical principle:“Every effect has a cause”? This is not empirically verifiable but its truth is beyond “reasonable” doubt. How about the claim “the external world exists.” This is completely unverifiable, but I’m sure you believe it. So it is true beyond “reasonable” doubt. How about “light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum at all times and all places”? This is not empirically verifiable at all, but it is believed to be true beyond reasonable doubt too.
…then refute all of them if they are so easily refutable. I am not convinced.
Sure, the claim that “God miraculously intervened in event X” requires evidence. But the claim that “God exists” does not require evidence. Neither does the claim that “mathematical points, lines, and planes exist” require evidence.
God as a concept requires little or no justification, and you can philosophize until the cows come home. But when you say “God made the world,” or “God hears your thoughts” then you better be able to prove it, empirically - because that’s the level of evidence that’s required.No - and I have not stated there is no objective fact. I’ve just stated that we have no evidence of one.
The topic is not whether or not God exists. The topic I initially started with you is whether empirical evidence is a better form of justification for believing something than logic, intuition, the principle of sufficient reason, the inference to the best explanation, etc. So stick to the topic at hand, Sherlock
wanstronian:
Like I said in the other thread, correcting your semantics is a perfectly legitimate enterprise. In fact, it is essential since if you **cannot **use a term correctly like “evidence,” “justification,” or “refutation” then you’ve failed to make your point. For your own benefit, I suggest you get on the same page with everyone else, otherwise you are not communicating anything at all.
.
Another strawman. I never concluded objective morality exists. I said disagreements among people is not admissible evidence for concluding that moral claims are therefore subjective. I was attacking your argument, not constructing one of my own, Sherlock.
Prove it.
I already did several times. You just choose to read what you want to read. Electrons, gravity, forces, the constant velocity of light–none of these are observed. So either we are irrational to believe that these entities exist, or your only criterion for what counts as justication, namely evidence, is false. So which is it?
Another strawman. I said “God exists” is not an empirical claim needing empirical evidence from the start, not that “God exists” is on par with the claim that “electrons exist.” I am attacking your criterion of ultimate warrant and justification which is:
Stick to the topic at hand and avoid ad hominems. It doesn’t improve your case at all but makes you look unintelligent.
Perhaps if you specified what your criterion actually is of what counts as a justfication for reasonable belief, then we would not get into these difficulits. I am looking for your buried assumptions, so I am just one step ahead of you. It’s apparent, then, that your actual criterion is this:
When someone makes such silly errors, it is perfectly legitimate to expose them on the forum in which these errors are discussed.
What arguments? You just assume that the criterion (namely, evidence) is the only criterion for one’s holding a justified and ascertainably warranted belief. But I’ve shown numerous counterexamples since I started to think this is assuredly false. So where are your counterarguments? You are coming up drastically short with any good replies here.
Truth requires nothing. Truth isn’t relative. Truth Is. A Falsehood is still a Falsehood if everyone believes it, the Truth is still the Truth if no one believes it (or proves it).
Absolutely.
Wanstronian’s inability to offer counterarguments amounts to this:No empirical justification at all. I’ve never said that every theory is true, this is just another misrepresentation of my position. I’d be interested on your thoughts about whether a scientific theory has ever been overturned by non-empirical evidence, such as the methods that you describe. I think that would provide a more accurate picture of our respective positions.
Okay, I misunderstood you. (See how easy it is to admit that?) So, are you actually saying that scientific justification is groundless, but regardless, other forms of justification are more reliable? Can you give an example that applies to our real-world environment?
Indeed. However, you are comparing apples with pears if you try to lump God in with those phenomena. Let me point out that I have never said that empirical verification is not the only valid verification. It’s just that the existence of a God that created our world and/or manipulates it on a daily basis and/or performs all the other acts that are commonly associated with God, require that level of evidence because without it, it’s easy to suggest any number of alternate explanations for the phenomenon.
Their refutations are well known and have been around for as long as the arguments themselves. I’m not going to reproduce all the refutations here, but give me your best argument, and I’ll show you how there is easily sufficient logical flaw or assertion to cast serious doubt on the conclusion. That’s not to say that I can prove your conclusion to be wrong, just that your method of arriving at it is flawed and so unlikely to be right.
Implicit in the claim that “God exists” is the baggage of his creating the universe, performing miracles, listening to our prayers, and so on. Claims such as this require evidence. A claim that “God exists” whereby the abstract concept of a God in instilled in someone’s mind, requires no evidence. When the claim is that he in any way influences my environment, I have the right to ask for evidence.
Your arrogance and condescension do you no favours. For someone clearly educated and of above average intelligence, you let yourself down by such snide remarks. And in answer to your comment, which I have never actually strayed away from other than in response to one of your comments - empirical evidence is better - indeed, necessary - for some beliefs, than for others. Beliefs that have impact on the state of our physical universe, for instance, should not be supported by intuition or a subjective ‘best explanation.’
Well, I’m not educated in the semantics of scientific and philosophical terminology… like most of the people on this forum, I’d guess. I don’t see why I have to go away and take on some education to debate here. I didn’t see that in the rules. Feel free to correct my semantics, and I’ll be grateful for the lesson. But you haven’t been correcting, you’ve been disparaging. And in any case, this isn’t a professional forum, so I have no obligation to conform to any semantic guidelines just to keep you happy. You’re the first person to make such a fuss.
Again with the condescension. My main reason for stating that morality is subjective is the fact that it has changed over the years, while always being broadly consistent within the realm of society at the time. So what’s the most rational conclusion to draw, other than that morality reflects Zeitgeist?
I would have expected better of you than to ask me to prove a negative, given your apparent grasp of logic. Still, once a theist, always a theist, I suppose.
It’s generally accepted that ‘observation’ of a phenomenon includes observation of the effect of that phenomenon. So my position is entirely consistent. Although we can’t see gravity, we understand how it works and to what extent, and we can apply this predictively to reaffirm our theory. We can glean enough evidence to make a correct prediction about the phenomenon, which enforces our theory. What’s irrational about that?
It’s not a strawman, it was a question. Hence the question mark. You’re so hot on correcting my semantics, yet you seem to be a bit weak on common grammar!
No - you’re fabricating that criterion on my behalf. I’m not playing that game, sorry.
You could take some of your own advice… Sherlock. Your arrogance shines through, and if ever something made someone look like they’re covering a lack of intelligence, it’s arrogance.
Clearly you’re not - you just think you are!
Yes, so you said. There’s no reason to repeat yourself. As I said, this is not my position, so you’ve been arguing a fabrication all this time.
Well, I don’t need to respond to this because it’s just a continuation of your previous incorrect assumption.
I’ve made no errors. If I had, a mature person would stick at attempting to point them out to me, rather than trumpeting about them to someone else as if I wasn’t here. But I can live with your rudeness, I’ll just factor it into any further discussion I have with you.
I don’t think I’ll bother talking to you, actually. You’re just stirring, and clearly have nothing sensible to contribute.
I’m pointing out that your demand is irrational.
I’ve been a research scientist for the past fifteen years. I can assure you that your demand for empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of God is not science, but scientism.
No empirical justification at all? Oh no! That spells trouble. If utility is not an epistemic guide to truth, then utility or empirical “success” is not a* justification *for believing in any scientific theory.
Huh?..That’s a useless question. Of course not. No one thinks this, not me anyways… The reason is that empiricism **presupposes ** inductive/deductive logic, the principle of sufficient reason, and the inference to the best explanation. It operates from these **a priori logical **principles, so how could a theory be overturned by the principle of non-contradition unless the theory itself were a contradiction from the start? That would be a dumb theory. So logically, a theory is unfalsifiable unless it is inconsistent or contradictory somewhere within its theoretical constructs and the deductive consequences of that theory lead to further inconsistencies. Here’s an example. We now have 2 incompatible theories of the world which are directly contradictory and we cannot reconcile the two: Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s Special/General Theory of Relativity. So one of them has to be false Which is it? We don’t know yet.
No, notice the difference:
I agree. “God intervened in such and such a situation” is empirically testable. But like I said, “God exists” is not an empirical claim. It is an a priori postulate used to explain the origin of the universe, just as electrons are postulated to explain current, electricity, and various other subatomic phenomena. The consequences of both postulates are testable, so we have evidence for both. (1) The existence of the universe, (2) magnetism, current, electricity.
Oh really? ALL of these arguments have been refuted? That’s quite a big claim for one person to make! You sound pretty sure of yourself.
Oh, I see. So you are the arbiter of what is rational for me to believe. But then you can’t tell me why my belief in God is irrational except for saying that I have no empirical evidence for it. But I do! Some evidence is empirical, some of this “evidence” is logical. For instance, all my reasons for believing in the Existence of God come from the following sources:
Forget the baggage. I am talking about the existence of God simpliciter. Most Christians, such as myself, hold that belief in the existence of God is properly basic, justified, and perfectly warranted. We have the first-person experience that is **even more real **to us than the first-person experience of the external world. For your information, there is no more evidence for the claim that “the external world exists is true” outside your own conception of it than there is for the claim that “God exists is true” outside my own conception of God. Do you doubt your own first-person experience? For instance, can you provide ANY evidence to me that you are NOT a brain in a vat, and that the external world exists outside your conceptions and sensations? “God exists” is identically on par with the claim that “the external world exists.” So if you think the latter belief is perfectly, you ought to believe the former is perfectly justified.