What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Fervent]

No, it really is. The discussion is about faith based belief versus evidence based belief. If I told you there was a dragon in the basement and you simply believed me then it would be faith based. If you had a few dozen people help you examine it and it proved to be real then it would be an evidence based belief. It's that simple. Although you seem determined to head off into the weeds at every opportunity. Try to concentrate on what the discussion is about.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse and making a category mistake about what faith-based belief is. It's not a question of evidence or no evidence, because the existence of the universe is evidence of God's existence under a theistic understanding of the world. The issue is that you make an a priori assumption in naturalism, and then expect methodological naturalism to refute theistic belief. It's a circular justification that is enforced through consensus pressure.

You're making it so.

I''m not forwarding a positive position, I'm questioning how you know things by proposing skeptical hypotheses. I'm not making anything so, simply pressing you with skepticism.

I don't doubt things. I'm reasonably confident on a lot of matters. With the rider that I will hold my position until given evidence to the contrary.

Then why did you say that you do doubt things? You've insulated yourself from evidence by restricting the field of evidence to inquiry built on your metaphysical commitments. And you make a category mistakee by treating a claim about ontological grounding as an ordinary claim of existence.

You are quite determined to try to show that you really can't trust anyone. I hope that doesn't impact your faith.

God be true, and every man a liar. Though I'm not pressing these skeptical questions as my own position, simply pressing you since you claim that skepticism is always a virtue.

This is about evidence v faith based belief. Get out of the weeds, please.

Nonesense, this is about a priori commitments to metaaphysical frameworks masquerading as evidential restraint. If the only thing you consider evidence is those things pertaining to naturalism, all you'll find is evidence pertaining to naturalism. But that's not because there is a lack of evidence, you simply refuse to venture out of your little intellectual prison.

 

[Bradskii]

Certainly, but by your stipulation wouldn't you desire disbelief in what they are studying as a virtue? Don't you want them trying to disprove the reality of what they intend to study?

I do. I already explained that. However good a biologist someone might be, if she's a member of the Australian Dragon Breeding Association then I won't be inviting her into the group.

 

[Fervent]

I do. I already explained that. However good a biologist someone might be, if she's a member of the Australian Dragon Breeding Association then I won't be inviting her into the group.

What difference does a person's belief make on the quality of evidence or strength of argument? Do you not recognize exclusion on those grounds is simply trading on ad hominem?

 

[Bradskii]

God be true, and every man a liar. Though I'm not pressing these skeptical questions as my own position, simply pressing you since you claim that skepticism is always a virtue.

You argument has been that no-one can be trusted. That's not skepticism. Do you want me to find the post?

Nonesense, this is about a priori commitments to metaaphysical frameworks masquerading as evidential restraint.

Nup. It's about faith based belief v evidence based belief. You appear to want to argue against that by saying that we can't trust evidence. Which will come surprise to so many people in this forum who regularly offer evidence for God's existence and the veracity of miracles.

 

[Bradskii]

What difference does a person's belief make on the quality of evidence or strength of argument?

Bias. Very obviously. And you've again reached the stage where you just post for the sake of posting. Unless you have something new and interesting to say then I'm going to leave you to it and take my hangover to the gym for a couple of hours.

 

[Fervent]

You argument has been that no-one can be trusted. That's not skepticism. Do you want me to find the post?

It's a skeptical hypothesis that people are feeding you lies, it's only one of many ways to question general knowledge and expert testimony. I am not asserting that no one can be trusted as a genuine fact, but am playing the skeptic about how you justify your beliefs.

Nup. It's about faith based belief v evidence based belief. You appear to want to argue against that by saying that we can't trust evidence. Which will come surprise to so many people in this forum who regularly offer evidence for God's existence and the veracity of miracles.

Considering you fail to recognize the basic fact(and necessity) of free will in epistemics your claims of "evidence" are laughable to me. You rely on second-hand information that tells you you're just being carried by physical forces outside of your control, so your evaluative abilities are quite suspect.

 

[Fervent]

Bias. Very obviously. And you've again reached the stage where you just post for the sake of posting. Unless you have something new and interesting to say then I'm going to leave you to it and take my hangover to the gym for a couple of hours.

Why does a particular belief imply that the person is any more biased than anyone else? You're just trading on ad hominem and failing to recognize your own bias in the matter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You honestly don't see the circularity in your position? You presume the world to be physical, and then refuse to define physical in a way that doesn't simply capture all demonstrable phenomena, and then refuse to venture into anything but physics to challenge that definition. You've locked yourself in a circle tht can't possibly be demonstrated wrong.

Absolutely not. I defined natural based on the things that are defined to be natural (the four forces of physics) and a few that might be (TBD). It is not circular at all. You might not care for my definition, or prefer that it be formulated in a different way, but it is not circular. It is not. I could also formulate it as "anything ultimately dependent on what is described by Einstien's General Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics." Says the same thing and still not circular. "What is not supernatural", now that is circular.

It absolutely is if you want to claim that physics is what determines what kinds of things there are that exist. The lack of clarity on the issue at present undermines any belief about the kinds of things that exist since it is apparent from the disunity that our present understanding of physics is likely radically in error.

The unification of physics is not a requirement to use known physics to define "natural". The insistence by some that they "must" be unified is a personal opinion based on want for physics to be unified fully. Reality is not under any obligation to comport with that opinion. (Just like it does not care that I dislike GR and wish it didn't exist.) The two as yet ununified branches of physics work exceedingly well in their own domains, so expecting them to fail is at your own peril.

Don't you mean in brain?

No. Mind and brain aren't the same thing. Mind is a product of living brain.

And how do you mediate that evidence? Aren't you just a clockspring following mindless physical laws?

Perhaps, but any discussion of that would be the dullness that is philosophy.

Experience is the ground of epistemics, physicaal facts are neccessarily mediated through consciousness so treating them as more secure than our subjective experience is misguided at the very least.

The vaunted subjective experience of reading the output display on a measurement tool. No solisist games wanted.

Completely unsurprising you would say as much from your dogmatic position on physics and refusal to question what it is you believe about metaphysics by dismissing any discussion of metaphysics.

Science hasn't detected souls or spirts. I have no experience with either. As such I see no reason to add them to any understanding of anything

Not exactly, that's just one of the evidential pieces. The argument against materialism is more based on the absurd positions that are treated as legitimate in physicalist circles because there are no good physicalist alternatives.

I see I am not the only one who can't distinguish between "materialist" and "physicalist".

Mind and brain present different properties, for example intentionality.

Mind is operational in its properties. Brain is examineable with instruments.

So you believe in something that is unfalsifiable? Or do you not really believe in naturalism/materialism/physicalism? How did you come by that belief?

Definitions set the structure of the discussion. We can work with any reasonable definition we agree on. I don't believe I've heard any meaning full difference between naturalism/materialism/physicalism so I am not going to pretend they are different. You are free to provide a distinction and I may or may not find such distinctions meaningful.

So you don't read them, but you respond? Why is that, exactly?

So you know that I don't care about your philo-rambles. (I see you included my last response about QM in that quote block. It is a wise choice to let go of the QM claims and stick to the fuzzier world of mind.)

 

[Fervent]

Absolutely not. I defined natural based on the things that are defined to be natural (the four forces of physics) and a few that might be (TBD). It is not circular at all. You might not care for my definition, or prefer that it be formulated in a different way, but it is not circular. It is not. I could also formulate it as "anything ultimately dependent on what is described by Einstien's General Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics." Says the same thing and still not circular. "What is not supernatural", now that is circular.

You defined anything demonstrable as "natural" and then you exclusively look to that methodology to provide you with evidence. Your latter definition is post hoc, though at least it isn't circular. Though you've pigeonholed yourself into what the current consensus is, but I suspect if the consensus changed you'll move your definition again.

The unification of physics is not a requirement to use known physics to define "natural". The insistence by some that they "must" be unified is a personal opinion based on want for physics to be unified fully. Reality is not under any obligation to comport with that opinion. (Just like it does not care that I dislike GR and wish it didn't exist.) The two as yet ununified branches of physics work exceedingly well in their own domains, so expecting them to fail is at your own peril.

It is when we're talking about the kinds of things that exist. The disjoint implies that there is a considerable gap in our understanding, and that it will likely be displaced by an as of yet unknown theory that either bridges the gap or at least explains the disjoint.

No. Mind and brain aren't the same thing. Mind is a product of living brain.

What's the difference? If mind is a product of a brain and nothing more, how is that different from an equivalence?

Perhaps, but any discussion of that would be the dullness that is philosophy.

Well, at least your consistent in your dismissive attitude. Wouldn't want to step out of your epistemic comfort zone, now would you?

The vaunted subjective experience of reading the output display on a measurement tool. No solisist games wanted.

No solipsist games being played, experience is where alll epistemics begin. Measurement is secondary, as physical facts are all mediated through subjective experience. To treat measurement as more secure than direct experience requires a leap that is unjustified. This isn't "solipsist games," it's a basic fact of epistemology.

Science hasn't detected souls or spirts. I have no experience with either. As such I see no reason to add them to any understanding of anything

Do you know of anyone who proposes a physical soul or spirit for science to detect? That's like saying that geometry has not demonstrated the reality of koalas as a reason for denying the existence of koalas.

I see I am not the only one who can't distinguish between "materialist" and "physicalist".

They are basically interchangeable, physicalist is only what modern materialist philosophers have retreated to because of classic theories of matter are no longer sustainable philosophically. In practice, they're still trading on 19th centurey philosophy but dressing it up in sciency sounding clothes.

Mind is operational in its properties. Brain is examineable with instruments.

Whatever you intend this to mean, it appears more of an assertion with no real meaning.

Definitions set the structure of the discussion. We can work with any reasonable definition we agree on. I don't believe I've heard any meaning full difference between naturalism/materialism/physicalism so I am not going to pretend they are different. You are free to provide a distinction and I may or may not find such distinctions meaningful.

And the failure for you to make a meaningful distinction of your position simply shows that you have not engaged with it skeptically/critically. Otherwise you'd be able to provide a meaningful and testable definition rather than defining it ostensively as if the meaning is clear.

So you know that I don't care about your philo-rambles. (I see you included my last response about QM in that quote block. It is a wise choice to let go of the QM claims and stick to the fuzzier world of mind.)

Oh dear, you don't care about my rambles. What ever shall I do? For shame, for shame.

 

[Bradskii]

It's a skeptical hypothesis that people are feeding you lies...

That's why I've incorporated cross checking results, peer reviews, blind testing of samples etc. By the way, how would you go about determining if it's an actual dragon?

Considering you fail to recognize the basic fact(and necessity) of free will in epistemics...

There's a thread about that. You should check it out.

 

[Fervent]

That's why I've incorporated cross checking results, peer reviews, blind testing of samples etc. By the way, how would you go about determining if it's an actual dragon?

What else could it be?

There's a thread about that. You should check it out.

I'm aware of your position on it, and my point is your position on the matter in failing to recognize something that we all have direct experience of and need not believe in based on some other fact raises suspicion over your ability to evaaluate evidence. If you can't recognize properly basic beliefs, what hope is there for you?

 

[Bradskii]

Why does a particular belief imply that the person is any more biased than anyone else?

Please don't waste my time asking silly questions (and please don't repeat it).

 

[Fervent]

Please don't waste my time asking silly questions (and please don't repeat it).

Why shouldn't I? I can't possibly waste your time, you have free will to spend your time however you choose. Only you can waste your time, unless somehow you're implying I can compel you to respond to questions you consider silly.

 

[Bradskii]

What else could it be?

Could be a lizard. How would you investigate it to find out?

 

[Bradskii]

Why shouldn't I? I can't possibly waste your time...

Darn it. You just did it again...

 

[Fervent]

Darn it. You just did it again...

Amazing I have such power over you.

 

[Fervent]

Could be a lizard. How would you investigate it to find out?

What is a lizard supposed to be analagous for in this discussion?

 

[Yttrium]

What do you say to anti-theists who say, the universe is self existent and all it's marvels exist by chance of themselves?

I just encountered this thread, and I have to say, I've never encountered such a person. At this rate, I don't think I'll have to say anything to them.

 

[Bradskii]

What is a lizard supposed to be analagous for in this discussion?

What? Please pay attention. You asked what else it could be. So how would you investigate it?

 

[Fervent]

What? Please pay attention. You asked what else it could be. So how would you investigate it?

Are you still pretending that the discussion about dragons was about dragons and not an analogy? If so, you're denser than I thought. If not, what is a lizard supposed to be analagous for?


If we are talking about dragons, then the existence would depend entirely on how we define "dragon," cause we could easily identify somehting as a dragon and a lizard at the same time. Like a Komodo Dragon or a bearded dragon or any number of similarly designaated extant animals. Point being that the analogy of a dragon for the elephant in the room involves making a category mistake in treating questions of fundamental ontology into an ordinary existential question.