To more "gems" from WSP's "treasure trove"

[Black_Rose]

For a materialist, they should be humble and admit that the supernatural cannot be perceived or sensed, not claim it does not exist because they cannot see it.

There are some materialists who deny outright the existence of supernatural. But they do not do this only and solely

because the supernatural in not observable. There are other reasons (much more fundamental) for their denial. However, here we deal with the possibility of observation (or lack of it), so these objections are out of the scope of this discussion. What most materialists say that since the supernatural is not observable, its existence is very improbable (but not impossible).
I meant to add the propositional phrase “with certitude” after “not exist”…

One question. You chose to respond only to the last paragraph. Do you agree or disagree with the beginning of the OP?

I agree with you that empiricism and the verification/falsification principles should not use the universal operator, and that some propositions might not be amendable to testing through empirical methods or verification or falsification. Certain forms of reasoning derived from empiricism such as inductive reasoning (inferring a universal conclusion from a restricted, specific set of observations) cannot be justified with induction alone because it is self-referential. Unlike the problem of induction, empiricism and verification or falsification of propositions simply require acceptance of their respective principles and those principles do not apply to themselves since they use the existential operator. Regarding science, Sir Karl Popper sought to escape from the inductivist morass (which would lead one to unpragmatic skepticism ) by proposing that scientific ideas constitute knowledge not because they have been verified, but they make predictions that render them vulnerable to falsification and they have survived the subsequent barrage of testing by empirical investigation where incorrect ideas would be falsified. This methodology relies on modus tollens (denying the consequent); for instance, consider the proposition “if P then Q and R”. Affirming “Q” and “R” does not mean “P” is necessarily true, but denying “Q” or “R” would reveal “P” to be false.

 

[R_Daneel]

I meant to add the propositional phrase “with certitude” after “not exist”…

Even though it was not there, I assumed it to be there. As you say, there is no certitude.

I agree with you that empiricism and the verification/falsification principles should not use the universal operator, and that some propositions might not be amendable to testing through empirical methods or verification or falsification. Certain forms of reasoning derived from empiricism such as inductive reasoning (inferring a universal conclusion from a restricted, specific set of observations) cannot be justified with induction alone because it is self-referential. Unlike the problem of induction, empiricism and verification or falsification of propositions simply require acceptance of their respective principles and those principles do not apply to themselves since they use the existential operator. Regarding science, Sir Karl Popper sought to escape from the inductivist morass (which would lead one to unpragmatic skepticism ) by proposing that scientific ideas constitute knowledge not because they have been verified, but they make predictions that render them vulnerable to falsification and they have survived the subsequent barrage of testing by empirical investigation where incorrect ideas would be falsified. This methodology relies on modus tollens (denying the consequent); for instance, consider the proposition “if P then Q and R”. Affirming “Q” and “R” does not mean “P” is necessarily true, but denying “Q” or “R” would reveal “P” to be false.

Thank you. This is precisely the kind of response I was hoping for. Every sentence is pure gold. If I may just offer a suggestion: please break up your posts into paragraphs, it is easier to read. Of course that does not affect the validity of your post in the least.

Let’s talk about induction. The mathematical induction is impeccable. In that case we have a proposition and wish to establish its veracity for infinitely many cases. For example the propostion that the sum of the first “n” even numbers (from 1 to 2*n-1) always equals n^2. Such a propostion cannot verifed empirically, yet it can be proven inductively. This proof relies on one simple fact. We can show that the property is **inherited **for any arbitrary “n” to “n+1”. This inheritance proves that if the hypothesis is true for any arbitrary “n”, it is also true for “n+1”. Then we verify it for one starting value of n=1 and see 1 = 1^2. Therefore it is true for any “n” - infinitely many of them. There is no problem here.

Now popular induction is a different matter. An example would be: “since we have only seen white swans, therefore all swans are white”. The observation of even one black swan would invalidate our hypothesis. But, there is an important distinction to be made here. It is the observation of a black swan which invalidates the hypothesis, not some generic “principle” that all inductive processes will have an exception to them. Some might, some might not.

The fact is that in nature it is possible to find exceptions, in mathematics it is not. Thus the induction principle is not “foolproof”. However, that does not mean that it is “useless”. Based upon the number of observations we can reasonably conclude that a specific inductive inference is “virtually” proven to be true. For example, the basic principle of “preservation on matter / energy / momentum” has been verified so many times, that there is no reason to doubt its veracity. The only rub is that not all inductive processes can be assumed to be equal. Some are more thoroughly established than others. And if there is a “problem” of induction, then this is it. Some animals are just more equal than others.

 

[R_Daneel]

you mean to say its a member of the set of all propositions. not that it actually refers to its self like the liar sentence does.

i shouldnt have to explain your arguments to you.

Obviously you had to explain it to yourself. I know what I am talking about. So do you admit now that the weaker version is not self-refuting? Precisely because it does not refer to itself (either directly or indirectly), and does not refer to all the propostions?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Obviously you had to explain it to yourself. I know what I am talking about.

in post #14 i had explain it to you, pointed out proof that you are not a mathematician as you have claimed, and generally crushed the entire argument you were proposinng.

you kept calling it the ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ versions, and until i finally realized what you were trying to say, you werent making any sense.

so, no, you did not know what you were talking about.

So do you admit now that the weaker version is not

 

[R_Daneel]

in post #14 i had explain it to you, pointed out proof that you are not a mathematician as you have claimed, and generally crushed the entire argument you were proposinng.

As if you could deduce anything.

you kept calling it the ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ versions, and until i finally realized what you were trying to say, you werent making any sense.

Since I explained it in great detail, several times, and you still did not get it, it only reflects on the level of your non-comprehension.

i would not be surprised if you are soon a theist yourself.

Another priceless gem. Do you even understand the ramification of this sentence? I don’t think so.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As if you could deduce anything.

your claim to be a mathematician is false. you thought axioms were restricted to mathematics. a real mathematician would know better.

Since I explained it in great detail, several times, and you still did not get it, it only reflects on the level of your non-comprehension.

i understand. you didnt know that the you were trying to talk about the weak version of verificationism. you just kept trying to call the strong version, ‘incorrect’ and the weak one ‘correct’.

i understand that you didnt know what you were talking about. you were unfamiliar with the subject and blustering.

now, are you going to try to defend the weak version of verification?

FONT=“Verdana”]Another priceless gem. Do you even understand the ramification of this sentence? I don’t think so.

no, i was an atheist, as were a few of my friends. the earth didnt stop moving for us on reconversion, and it wont stop for you. it didnt even stop for antony flew.

yes, you may lose some friends, you might lose some family. and you will definitely lose the respect of any people who share your current beliefs.

but in return for what you lose, i can make you certain promises.

i can promise, that you will suffer, i can promise you a more difficult life, i can promise you a constant struggle with temptation, i can promise you, a river of tears.

i promise, you will be laughed at, spat upon, jeered, and disrespected.

i can also promise you.

every bit of it will be worth it, every sling and arrow cast at you will be a mark of loyalty to the G-d who has redeemed you with His own divine Suffering…

i can promise you a life of meaning and purpose, real meaning and purpose, not lies you have to tell yourself to justify simply being alive, in a G-dless, pointless, materialist universe.

i can point you to the Promise of Christ should you persevere to the end. Christ promises us Perfection by G-ds Grace, in the Kingdom of G-d. That is the ultimate prize.

afte all.

what profit is it to a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

 

[R_Daneel]

your claim to be a mathematician is false. you thought axioms were restricted to mathematics. a real mathematician would know better.

What would you want? A copy of my summa cum laude doctorate in applied mathematics and economics? From the university where I was lecturing math for about 15 years? Sorry, you won’t get it.

i understand. you didnt know that the you were trying to talk about the weak version of verificationism. you just kept trying to call the strong version, ‘incorrect’ and the weak one ‘correct’.

I called them for what they are.

now, are you going to try to defend the weak version of verification?

There is nothing to defend. It is the one and only scientific method, which allows separating true and false claims about reality and about abstract sciences. Observe, philosophy is missing, because philosophy is either a meta-science, or empty speculation.

no, i was an atheist, as were a few of my friends. the earth didnt stop moving for us on reconversion, and it wont stop for you. it didnt even stop for antony flew.

yes, you may lose some friends, you might lose some family. and you will definitely lose the respect of any people who share your current beliefs.

but in return for what you lose, i can make you certain promises.

i can promise, that you will suffer, i can promise you a more difficult life, i can promise you a constant struggle with temptation, i can promise you, a river of tears.

i promise, you will be laughed at, spat upon, jeered, and disrespected.

i can also promise you.

every bit of it will be worth it, every sling and arrow cast at you will be a mark of loyalty to the G-d who has redeemed you with His own divine Suffering…

i can promise you a life of meaning and purpose, real meaning and purpose, not lies you have to tell yourself to justify simply being alive, in a G-dless, pointless, materialist universe.

i can point you to the Promise of Christ should you persevere to the end. Christ promises us Perfection by G-ds Grace, in the Kingdom of G-d. That is the ultimate prize.

afte all.

what profit is it to a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

None of your promises are worth a speck of dust. It is empty speculation. Even a sad reality beats a colorful illusion, hands down. I prefer reality, and have no need for empty promises.

By the way, I was religious when I was young. What happened can be illustrated by a good old joke: “There was an ad in the paper which said: ‘Christian puppies for sale’. A nice Christian couple got excited and after a few weeks of deliberation they followed up on the ad, and wanted to by one of those puppies. The owner shook his head and said: ‘Sorry, I only have atheist puppies’. The couple was upset, and asked what happened to those Christian puppies? The owner shrugged and said: 'You waited too long. Their eyes opened.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is nothing to defend. It is the one and only scientific method, which allows separating true and false claims about reality

the scientific method doesnt separate true claims from false claims about reality. nor is it the same thing as verificationism.

and about abstract sciences.

and it doesnt address the ‘abstract’ sciences at all. which would include all logical systems, and most of philosophy. mathematics included.

 

[Black_Rose]

no, i was an atheist, as were a few of my friends. the earth didnt stop moving for us on reconversion, and it wont stop for you. it didnt even stop for antony flew.

yes, you may lose some friends, you might lose some family. and you will definitely lose the respect of any people who share your current beliefs.

but in return for what you lose, i can make you certain promises.

i can promise, that you will suffer, i can promise you a more difficult life, i can promise you a constant struggle with temptation, i can promise you, a river of tears.

i promise, you will be laughed at, spat upon, jeered, and disrespected.

i can also promise you.

every bit of it will be worth it, every sling and arrow cast at you will be a mark of loyalty to the G-d who has redeemed you with His own divine Suffering…

i can promise you a life of meaning and purpose, real meaning and purpose, not lies you have to tell yourself to justify simply being alive, in a G-dless, pointless, materialist universe.

i can point you to the Promise of Christ should you persevere to the end. Christ promises us Perfection by G-ds Grace, in the Kingdom of G-d. That is the ultimate prize.

afte all.

what profit is it to a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

So you are now waving the white flag of surrender to “R Daneel” since you seem to be reneging on any adherence to the principles of empiricism and logic with your appeal to the love of Christ. I do not recommend turning this into an altar call as they would undermines one’s intellectual credibility. I do agree with your theological views even though I am in an inchoate exploratory phase where my faith has not been reinforced by years of faithful devotion and commitment, but still derive a sense of self satisfaction when I recognize the flaws in “proofs” or “evidence” for God’s existence. I doubt he would find much in the process where I derive my present faith which I candidly admit is not based on empiricism and logic. In fact, I even question the value of apologetics based on such approaches.

“R Daneel”, I am curious, what do you think about the fine-tuning argument? You seem to have a professional background that would probably yield some insightful thoughts to this. I do believe that out of the set of possible universes only a very small subset universes are capable of harboring sentient life forms, but I do not consider this be an argument for God’s existence.

 

[R_Daneel]

“R Daneel”, I am curious, what do you think about the fine-tuning argument? You seem to have a professional background that would probably yield some insightful thoughts to this. I do believe that out of the set of possible universes only a very small subset universes are capable of harboring sentient life forms, but I do not consider this be an argument for God’s existence.

Douglas Adams came up with the “puddle analogy”, in response to the fine-tuning argument. It runs like this:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddle_thinking#In_fiction_and_popular_culture

Stanislaw Lem, my favorite science-fiction writer, and very deep philosophical thinker wrote a wonderful story about this idea. I found it on the net, here is its url:

psychadelicbus.tripod.com/mymosh.txt

It is not too long, and very funny, besides being deep in its ideas. Have fun reading it.

Best wishes.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you are now waving the white flag of surrender to “R Daneel” since you seem to be reneging on any adherence to the principles of empiricism and logic with your appeal to the love of Christ.

not in the least, im not an empiricist. l do accept the principles of logic, however.

I do not recommend turning this into an altar call as they would undermines one’s intellectual credibility.

i think its a good idea that when you have weakened an atheists position, then is the time to present an alternative. cognitive dissonance, is an unpleasant situation, offering someone an ‘aspirin’ to relieve the discomfort at the right time, can be just the right medecine.

the point is to beat down the defenses until only an acceptance of the Truth can alleviate the pressure of cognitive dissonance.

of course, only G-d can change hearts. in my experience, people are usually atheists, for reasons that have nothing to do with atheism iteself

I do agree with your theological views even though I am in an inchoate exploratory phase where my faith has not been reinforced by years of faithful devotion and commitment, but still derive a sense of self satisfaction when I recognize the flaws in “proofs” or “evidence” for God’s existence. I doubt he would find much in the process where I derive my present faith which I candidly admit is not based on empiricism and logic. In fact, I even question the value of apologetics based on such approaches.

empiricism is self refuting, so that standard need not be met as it is false. but i disagree with you on logic, for me logic points as surely to G-d as an arrow. though thats grist for another mill.

im glad you are here and participating.