Searching for the Truth

[warpspeedpetey]

You still don’t get it - whatever the problem is, it’s not my computer(s). If it were, everyone else would see the same effect, and nobody else has mentioned it.

i got it the first time you said it.

however, the empirical evidence i am observing, says tha you are wrong. because it keeps occuring.

As I said, I post from more than one computer using more than one browser, depending on circumstance. So all things considered, it’s extremely unlikely that the problem is at my end. I certainly don’t have the funds or inclincation to buy a new computer in a futile attempt to fix your problem! (However, if you want to wire me the money, I’ll consider it…!)

and the one you are posting on right now is the culprit. i dont want you to buy a new computer, i want you to keep your posts a reasonable length becuase of the problem, but ive told you this before.

I suggest you contact CAF directly to ask their advice.

how would that matter? what could they do? nothing.

but you can do something. keep your posts reasonable in length.

i dont understand why this is still an issue.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Theists have God on their side. Atheists have logic. I know who I’d rather trust.” Actually God loves us both, equally and unconditionally, so great is His willingness to forgive our foibles and shortsightedness.

actually, we theists have logic on our side atheism doesnt have that either, hence the quick destruction of atheistic claims.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

i think its laughable as well, so if thats not your tactic, and you now know how your posts show up on my screen, when you post from wherever that occurs. the problem is easily solved. dont post long ones to me from that computer. then it wouldnt be an issue.

Petey, if you want to break up a long message to comment on the parts, just copy the ‘QUOTE’ tag exactly as you see it above after the last word you want in the quote. I type it in, then copy and past the sender’s opening string where I want to begin his next quote so it looks like your words above. Hope this helps.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey, if you want to break up a long message to comment on the parts, just copy the ‘QUOTE’ tag exactly as you see it above after the last word you want in the quote. I type it in, then copy and past the sender’s opening string where I want to begin his next quote so it looks like your words above. Hope this helps.

thank you.

i just reconstruct them from a second window as you suggest. the problem is that it becomes rather tedious in the very long multiple posts that wan and i exchange.

its ok though, i dont have any "quit’ in me.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

thank you.

i just reconstruct them from a second window as you suggest. the problem is that it becomes rather tedious in the very long multiple posts that wan and i exchange.

its ok though, i dont have any "quit’ in me.

It’s not tedious at all. Once you’ve copied the poster’s string, you just go to , and click and it’s done. Hang in there. He’s on the ropes.

 

[Syntax]

You confuse terms again:

(1) Empirical evidence is not “valid” or “invalid.” Only deductive arguments are “valid” or “invalid.”
(2) Empirical evidence is not something that is ever “refuted.” Only propositions and arguments can be refuted. “To refute” means “to logically disprove the truth of.” However, the support empirical evidence is thought to provide for believing a hypothesis can be *defeated *by counter-evidence that undermines the very same hypothesis, or it can defeated by the truth of another hypothesis that entails the denial of the hypothesis this evidence is thought to support.
(3) Empirical evidence is never “true” or “false.” It either exists or doesn’t. Only hypotheses, propositions, and theories can be true or false.

Further:

(4) “Evidence” is always interpreted according to the theory or the hypothesis already in place before it is said to confrim or disconfirm the hypothesis. Really raw “evidence” actually consists only of a collection of uninterpreted sense-data that has no bearing one way or another on a hypothesis yet, so it has to be interpreted by the theory, first, before it can be said to support or undermine the hypotheis that comes out of the theory.

So here’s the problem all scientists face: there is the threat of circularity in confirmation. If only data interpreted by the theory can be said to confirm a hypothesis, then the theory is using theory-laden data to confirm the theory!!! Uh oh:blush:

 

[wanstronian]

You confuse terms again:

(1) Empirical evidence is not “valid” or “invalid.” Only deductive arguments are “valid” or “invalid.”
(2) Empirical evidence is not something that is ever “refuted.” Only propositions and arguments can be refuted. “To refute” means “to logically disprove the truth of.” However, the support empirical evidence is thought to provide for believing a hypothesis can be *defeated *by counter-evidence that undermines the very same hypothesis, or it can defeated by the truth of another hypothesis that entails the denial of the hypothesis this evidence is thought to support.
(3) Empirical evidence is never “true” or “false.” It either exists or doesn’t. Only hypotheses, propositions, and theories can be true or false.

The fact that you have resorted to arguing semantics, is all the confirmation I need that you can’t counter my refutations of your claims.

Incidentally, I started reading through the ‘evidence’ thread as you suggested. I stopped when I got to Leela’s replication of your post where you claim that subjective personal experience of a religious event (you use the resurrection, although you don’t make it clear how a modern-day believer can have personal experience of this two-thousand-year-old alleged event) is sufficient evidence for it to be an objective reality! With outrageous assertions like that, I hardly think you’re in a position to accuse me of irrationality!

 

[wanstronian]

easily done. we call it …mathematics. in so far as “truth” can be acheived the deductive method, needs no empirical evidence. its funny to me that the closest thing we have to a certainty of truth, has no empirical component at all. but people who think of themselves as “scientifically minded” ignore this inconvenient truth.

logic is the golden standard of Truth, in so far as the axiomatic laws of logical inference are true. not empiricism.

Mathematics, as has been pointed out countless times, is perfect for dealing with abstract concepts. That’s what it’s for.

So I’m happy with non-empirical evidence, if you’re happy with the logical consequence that we are dealing with God also as an abstract concept, nothing more. If, however, you’re suggesting that God had, or has, some influence over our material world, then abstract axioms are not sufficient.

As for logic - it only works when you don’t make arbitrary assertions based on your presupposed conclusion. Unfortunately, theistic logic is all about presuppositional assertions - it has to be, because otherwise the ‘logic’ doesn’t work towards the theist’s desired conclusion!

 

[wanstronian]

i got it the first time you said it.

however, the empirical evidence i am observing, says tha you are wrong. because it keeps occuring.

This shows that you do not understand empirical evidence. Something happens just to you, so you jump to the conclusion that it’s something I’m doing wrong! Where’s your sample group? Where’s your research that my posts appear for everybody, they way they do to you? In short, what’s your evidence that this is my problem not yours?

and the one you are posting on right now is the culprit. i dont want you to buy a new computer, i want you to keep your posts a reasonable length becuase of the problem, but ive told you this before.

I have no obligation to restrict my posts just because you have a problem reading them. As I have said many times, my posts are as long as they need to be. I could make them shorter and not get my point across - perhaps that’s what you’re aiming for?

how would that matter? what could they do? nothing.

How do you know? The problem isn’t at my end. So it’s either at yours, or somewhere in the middle. If you’re sure there’s nothing wrong with your computer setup, then it must be CAF that’s causing the problem. Have you no deductive skills?

but you can do something. keep your posts reasonable in length.

Yawn… they’re as long as they need to be, no longer.

i dont understand why this is still an issue.

Because you keep bringing it up, that’s why.

 

[wanstronian]

actually, we theists have logic on our side atheism doesnt have that either, hence the quick destruction of atheistic claims.

You claim this, yet you can’t actually do it. The only atheistic claim is that the theist has no evidence for the existence of God. This claim is completely defendable, as demonstrated by the countless atheist posts and essays doing just that.

 

[wanstronian]

thank you.

i just reconstruct them from a second window as you suggest. the problem is that it becomes rather tedious in the very long multiple posts that wan and i exchange.

And as I pointed out, this is unreliable because if all you get from me is a block of text, you cannot possibly know for sure which of my comments refers to which of yours. Not that it matters, because you don’t seem to be interested in discourse, just in repetition ad nauseum.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s not tedious at all. Once you’ve copied the poster’s string, you just go to , and click and it’s done. Hang in there. He’s on the ropes.

On the ropes? How so? Saying something doesn’t make it true, you know! Although anecdotally at least, it seems that for the theist, it does…

 

[wanstronian]

Further:

(4) “Evidence” is always interpreted according to the theory or the hypothesis already in place before it is said to confrim or disconfirm the hypothesis. Really raw “evidence” actually consists only of a collection of uninterpreted sense-data that has no bearing one way or another on a hypothesis yet, so it has to be interpreted by the theory, first, before it can be said to support or undermine the hypotheis that comes out of the theory.

So here’s the problem all scientists face: there is the threat of circularity in confirmation. If only data interpreted by the theory can be said to confirm a hypothesis, then the theory is using theory-laden data to confirm the theory!!! Uh oh:blush:

And yet it works, consistently, for everybody. It’s self-correcting, stringent (when done properly), consistent and produces real results.

One thing it doesn’t do, of course, is confirm the existence of God. That’s because science is the art of describing what is real, not what someone wishes was real (again, when done properly).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

On the ropes? How so? Saying something doesn’t make it true, you know! Although anecdotally at least, it seems that for the theist, it does…

How so? You’re permanently on defense. You have no offense.

It seems that for the athiest also. As I’ve told you, we have evidence. You don’t. I understand you reject the evidence, but that’s just the denial you allude to.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Mathematics, as has been pointed out countless times, is perfect for dealing with abstract concepts. That’s what it’s for.

it does deal well with more abstract concepts, but equally as well with the empirical. which undercuts the idea that the empirical is all that exists.

So I’m happy with non-empirical evidence, if you’re happy with the logical consequence that we are dealing with God also as an abstract concept, nothing more. If, however, you’re suggesting that God had, or has, some influence over our material world, then abstract axioms are not sufficient.

why not? i dont see how you can make that claim without relying on the demonstrated logical contradictions of ‘empiricism’ or of ‘verification/falsification’ schemes

so if not on one of those demonstrably false arguments, what can you base this claim on?

As for logic - it only works when you don’t make arbitrary assertions based on your presupposed conclusion. Unfortunately, theistic logic is all about presuppositional assertions - it has to be, because otherwise the ‘logic’ doesn’t work towards the theist’s desired conclusion!

please make a specific example of this. i dont know where you are getting this idea. if you dont know the basis for our logical exposition of the necessity of G-d, then we can start with heirarchical contingency and work all the way back.

we dont need to presuppose anything, other than our own existence.

btw, presuppositionalism is more commonly protestant apologetics.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This shows that you do not understand empirical evidence. Something happens just to you, so you jump to the conclusion that it’s something I’m doing wrong! Where’s your sample group? Where’s your research that my posts appear for everybody, they way they do to you? In short, *what’s your evidence that this is my problem not yours?*I have no obligation to restrict my posts just because you have a problem reading them. As I have said many times, my posts are as long as they need to be. I could make them shorter and not get my point across - perhaps that’s what you’re aiming for?How do you know? The problem isn’t at my end. So it’s either at yours, or somewhere in the middle. If you’re sure there’s nothing wrong with your computer setup, then it must be CAF that’s causing the problem. Have you no deductive skills?Yawn… they’re as long as they need to be, no longer.Because you keep bringing it up, that’s why.

i understand empirical evidence, you are confusing it with subjectivity and the techniques of the scientific method. im not seeking to prove a problem objjectively, im pointing out that it is something i can physically see. you do have an obligation to restrict your posts to a reasonable length if you insist on using a faulty terminal.the problem is at your end, because your the only poster with the problem and it varies by the terminal you use.and its still a problem because you refuse to act reasonably and restrict your posts to a length where your faulty equipment doesnt impose an undue burden on the reader. the only advantage to either of us in this case would be to you. because you could hope that your opponent will just give up. which is what i am beginning to think, otherwise you would simply act to fix it, by reducing your post length or changing terminals. but you dont.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You claim this, yet you can’t actually do it.

i am happy to demonstrate the appropriate argumetnns at any time.

The only atheistic claim is that the theist has no evidence for the existence of God. This claim is completely defendable, as demonstrated by the countless atheist posts and essays doing just that.

really? because our claim is that existence itself is evidence of G-d, as demonstrated by the tens of billions of theists, and the thousands of papers written on the subject. and which i will be happy to demostrate with the heirarchical causality argument.

empiricism is a form of atheistic presuppositionalism, the idea that we cant even talk about that which is not empirically verifiable, presupposes that the empirically observable is all that exists.

luckily we can demonstrate at the outset it is a logical contradiuction. forever hamstringing atheism as a rational position.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And as I pointed out, this is unreliable because if all you get from me is a block of text, you cannot possibly know for sure which of my comments refers to which of yours. Not that it matters, because you don’t seem to be interested in discourse, just in repetition ad nauseum.

and yet i just demonstarted how i do it. i see post 109 normally like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey
i got it the first time you said it.

however, the empirical evidence i am observing, says tha you are wrong. because it keeps occuring.

This shows that you do not understand empirical evidence. Something happens just to you, so you jump to the conclusion that it’s something I’m doing wrong! Where’s your sample group? Where’s your research that my posts appear for everybody, they way they do to you? In short, what’s your evidence that this is my problem not yours?
Quote:

and the one you are posting on right now is the culprit. i dont want you to buy a new computer, i want you to keep your posts a reasonable length becuase of the problem, but ive told you this before.

I have no obligation to restrict my posts just because you have a problem reading them. As I have said many times, my posts are as long as they need to be. I could make them shorter and not get my point across - perhaps that’s what you’re aiming for?
Quote:

how would that matter? what could they do? nothing.

How do you know? The problem isn’t at my end. So it’s either at yours, or somewhere in the middle. If you’re sure there’s nothing wrong with your computer setup, then it must be CAF that’s causing the problem. Have you no deductive skills?
Quote:

but you can do something. keep your posts reasonable in length.

Yawn… they’re as long as they need to be, no longer.
Quote:

i dont understand why this is still an issue.

Because you keep bringing it up, that’s why.

---

Theists have God on their side; atheists have logic. I know which I’d rather put my trust in.

but when i qoute it to reply, it looks like this, because of something you are doing.

Originally Posted by wanstronian
This shows that you do not understand empirical evidence. Something happens just to you, so you jump to the conclusion that it’s something I’m doing wrong! Where’s your sample group? Where’s your research that my posts appear for everybody, they way they do to you? In short, what’s your evidence that this is my problem not yours?I have no obligation to restrict my posts just because you have a problem reading them. As I have said many times, my posts are as long as they need to be. I could make them shorter and not get my point across - perhaps that’s what you’re aiming for?How do you know? The problem isn’t at my end. So it’s either at yours, or somewhere in the middle. If you’re sure there’s nothing wrong with your computer setup, then it must be CAF that’s causing the problem. Have you no deductive skills?Yawn… they’re as long as they need to be, no longer.Because you keep bringing it up, that’s why.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And yet it works, consistently, for everybody

. It’s self-correcting, stringent (when done properly), consistent and produces real results.

and every theory so far has been an utter failure, regardless of practical utility, as demonstrated by all those supersede theories.

“self correcting” isnt a property of the scientific fmethood, its not as though a theory self corrects, a scientist sees a theory fail and then he, corrects it to the new observations, which as history show, has always been subject to more failures.

people could use a number of theories, say the caloric theory, to achieve useful results, all the while, the theory used was actually false.

One thing it doesn’t

science is the art of describing what has physically observable properties, according to our senses, nothing else.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How so? You’re permanently on defense. You have no offense.

It seems that for the athiest also. As I’ve told you, we have evidence. You don’t. I understand you reject the evidence, but that’s just the denial you allude to.