• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
God or no God, there's still no inherent meaning. Logic and mathematics is literally just pushing symbols which have no meaning.

Logic and mathematics structures a framework of meaning, and symbols communicate the relationships of that meaning. That meaning doesn't arise out of vacuum and it's not arbitrary.

I really would like you to explain to me what is involved in logic or mathematics aside from assumptions and definitions. I see no need for a god in this process.

Well, there's no need for Samsung as a company either when all you need to do is to push a remote button and flip to a channel to do what you want... watch something you like. But Samsung is a requirement for the TV to exist. Otherwise you are in a reality in which meaning is localized to a disjointed functionality which is circularly justified to "work" because it does something you predict.

My "brain chemical processes" are better than yours if I'm able to use mine to predict future events and make computers. Your assumption of God does none of that.

Why would that make them better if either fundamental assumption allows for the same kind of predictive qualities? Are you suggesting that theists are unable to build computers or predict events? Theism is merely a layer that links certain framework of meaning in reality. It doesn't magically change its nature or gives people abilities that they don't already have.

Likewise there are plentiful scientific theories that have no pragmatic applications at all or move our lives in either direction. It seems to me that you are suggesting to ignore every concept that doesn't "predict future events" in some manner that allows you to build products and services.

It does NOTHING.

Quite the opposite. As a fundamental agent that's assumed, it's responsible for meaning of everything. That fundamental aspect is relevant to how we perceive each other and the reality we occupy, and it drives our core actions towards one goal or another.

Now, given your assumptions, there is no meaning in reality beyond what you project. All you can identify are consistencies that you can cling to and communicate. You can then invent whatever meaning you want to link the facts that we observe. And as long as you find the pluralistic consensus of societal framework and follow some pragmatic curve... you can occupy our time building bridges to nowhere above the ocean of absurdity. So, to you, having a computer seems to be better than not having one, but you don't bother to justify the standards of "better" that you are referring to and why you think it makes things better. You can make a case that it makes things faster. Is faster better? Hence, you have nothing to cling to when you are appealing to "better" here.

Given my assumptions, there is meaning and we discover it and don't invent it. Hence there are things that would be clearly and contextually wrong precisely because there's a network of meaning embedded in reality in a total sense, and not only isolated contexts, and that's only possible if certain conscious agency is directing the process, be it in defining the initial structure, or maintaining the structure and rules.

It doesn't necessarily alter the scientific methodology we use, but it would change one's perception of self as it relates to reality around us. It's a question relevant to totality of reality and not individual bits that you can predict.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Correction: that number is 0.

The fact that you wrote 10 instead of 11 is telling to me. Why would you exclude John? Didn't he still *choose* to die, even if the oil didn't burn him? It seems that you're just looking at who "actually" died and then slapped "chose" on there.

Secular history holds that Peter was executed. Where was he given the choice? Seems like you pulled that out of thin air. Polycarp was given the choice... much later, under a different ruler, under different circumstances. Oh, and he wasn't a witness to anything as he was born after Jesus died. The rest of the disciples were executed? Says who? Catholic tradition? Books that were denied canonization due to being heretical? Do any of these sources actually say the disciples were given a choice in the matter? Because that's a key component, don't you think?

What you can leverage here is that history itself can hardly be proven. John is not martyred. He died a natural dead. In a nutshell, 10 out of 12 means the majority of Jesus' direct disciples are willing to die to testify. Denying this remains your intellectual dishonesty.

I ask here clearly, do you believe that the majority of Jesus' disciples are willing to die for what have been witnessed? Again, asking for proof is just to leverage the nature of history that history can hardly be solidly proven. We have historical records, whether you choose to disregard their credibility as you can do to virtually all sort of ancient human history, showing that the majority of them actually martyred themselves. That actually explained why Christianity spread so fast across Europe in the first several centuries.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many days can one survive without food? If you've ever taken a wilderness survival course, then you're aware of the rule of 3. Is it really your claim that I've lived over four decades on this planet, but haven't eaten one meal?

You can dodge all you can. Meals in my post meant the food contents. Try to evidence the food contents you ate in one of the million meals you ever ate historically. How you survived is completely irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We can do better than goading with sweeping generalizations. The point of this exercise on "Tricks," is to help us all think better. And to engage the good arguments on both sides of the debate.

You have done an adequate job of engaging the epistemic problem with your proof of eating example it seems.

I simply point out the atheistic tricks played the most often in discussion forums, tricks such as 1) sounding as if evidence being the sole way to get to a truth while it's not, 2) sounding as if a historical deed happened thousand years ago can be proved while it's not!

You can't even evidence your own meals which you had thousands of times in your life. The way we can get to what you ate is not by evidence nor by proof, simply because we can't. The way we can get to know what you ate is by "someone wrote or record it down for all of us to believe with faith!

"Ask for evidence", and "ask to prove history" are the most often tricks played by atheists in each and every religious forums by far! That's the point! In the end, what humans rely heavily on to reach a truth (such as one of your meal contents) is by putting faith in human testimonies. This is how this reality operates, and this is how we can get to what you ate in a certain meal without evidence (which you can't provide anyway). We can get to what you ate if a CNN reporter (credible source of human witnessing) wrote down what you ate that day for the rest of human kind to believe with faith.

It is thus pointless to "ask for evidence" of your meal before we believe what CNN reporter says. Under this circumstance, what worth arguing is how credible the source of witnessing is. CNN can be a credible source because it is an existing entity for us the evaluate right now as we speak. It is thus much more difficult to examine the credibility of the authors of ancient history. You almost exclusively need faith to believe that what have written down are credible to be treated as history!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can dodge all you can. Meals in my post meant the food contents. Try to evidence the food contents you ate in one of the million meals you ever ate historically. How you survived is completely irrelevant.
So, if I can't demonstrate an ingredients list for everything I've ever eaten, therefore god?

Who's playing tricks now?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Logic and mathematics structures a framework of meaning, and symbols communicate the relationships of that meaning. That meaning doesn't arise out of vacuum and it's not arbitrary.

Ok, so give me the formal definition of Ø. Perhaps Ø={}, but then what is the formal definition of a set? A collection of elements? But what is an element? A member of a set? Mathematicians have decided to avoid this by leaving Ø as a primitive symbol. It is undefined. What I am saying is old news. It's not up for debate. You're wrong. Catch up. Read set theory.

Well, there's no need for Samsung as a company either when all you need to do is to push a remote button and flip to a channel to do what you want... watch something you like. But Samsung is a requirement for the TV to exist. Otherwise you are in a reality in which meaning is localized to a disjointed functionality which is circularly justified to "work" because it does something you predict.

I presume your analogy here is leading back to your assertion that there exists a precursor to logic. So let's assume there exists a precursor to logic. What then?

There is no way to logically deduce what this precursor is, or that it even exists. This precursor does not influence anything. If it were to disappear from "existence", nothing would change.

Why would that make them better if either fundamental assumption allows for the same kind of predictive qualities? Are you suggesting that theists are unable to build computers or predict events? Theism is merely a layer that links certain framework of meaning in reality. It doesn't magically change its nature or gives people abilities that they don't already have.

No computer maker on earth has ever leaned on the assumption that God exists in order to make the computer. The assumption that God exists has never led to any advancement in knowledge or technology of any kind.

As I said, assumptions in philosophy are a liability, so they should be limited. If your assumption leads to no conclusions, why make such an assumption?

Likewise there are plentiful scientific theories that have no pragmatic applications at all or move our lives in either direction. It seems to me that you are suggesting to ignore every concept that doesn't "predict future events" in some manner that allows you to build products and services.

I'm saying that you should ignore assumptions that don't lead anywhere.



Quite the opposite. As a fundamental agent that's assumed, it's responsible for meaning of everything. That fundamental aspect is relevant to how we perceive each other and the reality we occupy, and it drives our core actions towards one goal or another.

If you definitively discovered that God does not exist, would you commit crimes? Is it your belief in God that prevents you from committing, say, rape and murder?

Now, given your assumptions, there is no meaning in reality beyond what you project.

So what? If that's the reality we find ourselves in, so be it. It would be an appeal to consequences fallacy to say that reality is as it is merely because of your preferences.

All you can identify are consistencies that you can cling to and communicate. You can then invent whatever meaning you want to link the facts that we observe. And as long as you find the pluralistic consensus of societal framework and follow some pragmatic curve... you can occupy our time building bridges to nowhere above the ocean of absurdity. So, to you, having a computer seems to be better than not having one, but you don't bother to justify the standards of "better" that you are referring to and why you think it makes things better. You can make a case that it makes things faster. Is faster better? Hence, you have nothing to cling to when you are appealing to "better" here.

I don't need to justify the fact that having a computer is better than not having one. This is what's called common sense. If you don't start here, there's little need to take you seriously.

Given my assumptions, there is meaning and we discover it and don't invent it.

What a silly thing to say. Assumptions are inventions. So you haven't discovered anything just by making assumptions. Your statement is utterly self-refuting.

Hence there are things that would be clearly and contextually wrong precisely because there's a network of meaning embedded in reality in a total sense, and not only isolated contexts, and that's only possible if certain conscious agency is directing the process, be it in defining the initial structure, or maintaining the structure and rules.

It doesn't necessarily alter the scientific methodology we use, but it would change one's perception of self as it relates to reality around us. It's a question relevant to totality of reality and not individual bits that you can predict.

So you admit that it doesn't change our scientific method. You say that it changes our perception of reality. What part of that even hints that what you're saying is actually true?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What you can leverage here is that history itself can hardly be proven. John is not martyred. He died a natural dead. In a nutshell, 10 out of 12 means the majority of Jesus' direct disciples are willing to die to testify. Denying this remains your intellectual dishonesty.

Denying? Dishonesty? I'm not denying anything. I'm affirming that the only sources that attest to disciple martyrdom are sources that you've already rejected all on your own. Unless you have some good reason to establish that these things probably happened, it's just textbook cherry picking. You reject the heretical bits not because of evidence but because they're heretical. You embrace the parts about martyrdom not because of evidence but because Christianity glorifies suffering and persecution.

Because I'm fully in the right and you are fully in the wrong, I invite you to lay out the sources for us all to see. Obviously you won't do that. A stalemate is your only move. You'll do nothing, you'll hope I do nothing, and if I do produce the sources you'll either ignore me or accuse me of leaving stuff out. It's the same old show every time.

I ask here clearly, do you believe that the majority of Jesus' disciples are willing to die for what have been witnessed?

Why don't you just gather the evidence and show me? Why do I have to make a blind belief choice one way or the other? Until you produce the evidence, should I believe it? No, obviously not.

Again, asking for proof is just to leverage the nature of history that history can hardly be solidly proven. We have historical records, whether you choose to disregard their credibility as you can do to virtually all sort of ancient human history, showing that the majority of them actually martyred themselves. That actually explained why Christianity spread so fast across Europe in the first several centuries.

It's not your job to temper my skepticism. That's out of your control. Same old story once again. Instead of showing us atheists evidence, you just whine that we will reject it so why bother. Perhaps the real issue here is that you know most atheists are former Christians and you are mortally terrified of what you will find.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so give me the formal definition of Ø. Perhaps Ø={}, but then what is the formal definition of a set? A collection of elements? But what is an element? A member of a set? Mathematicians have decided to avoid this by leaving Ø as a primitive symbol. It is undefined. What I am saying is old news. It's not up for debate. You're wrong. Catch up. Read set theory.

Simply because there are vague and undefined concepts doesn't mean that all of concepts are vague and undefined. Even in a case of zero or empty set there is a reason why there is no formal definition, because it communicates lack and not presence of something.

It doesn't, however, translate into that concept lacking meaning. The mere fact that you can recognize it means that it does have some meaning attached to it in framework of knowledge that you are referencing. It exists because it's used to communicate something.

I presume your analogy here is leading back to your assertion that there exists a precursor to logic. So let's assume there exists a precursor to logic. What then?

There is no way to logically deduce what this precursor is, or that it even exists. This precursor does not influence anything. If it were to disappear from "existence", nothing would change.

Why would we need to or be required to logically deduce the precursor for logic? How do we get logic to begin with then if you first need to logically validate it? :) There is always an inherent circularity in necessary assumptions.

No computer maker on earth has ever leaned on the assumption that God exists in order to make the computer. The assumption that God exists has never led to any advancement in knowledge or technology of any kind.

You are making a category error here. It's like saying that carpentry does nothing for advancing technology of computers. Well it does and it doesn't, depending on context you view it in. It does, because it contributes to societal infrastructure, which in turn feeds into tech development. If you remove carpentry from history of humanity, we wouldn't likely have computers, because carpentry is a technological precursor to early building. It's a necessary block of human technological development.

It's the same with religion and God concepts, and that's one of the reasons why I can't take you seriously when you make claims like these. These are not atheistic claims. These are anti-theistic claims. Even Nietzsche wouldn't deny religion's contribution to humanity. You seem to take a leap and say that that concept is useless :), and that's one of the reasons I can't take you seriously. It's a comment of immense ignorance of historical development of humankind.

As a small and isolated example:

“Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams, the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men! Through it, God will spread His Word. A spring of truth shall flow from it: Like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light heretofore unknown to shine amongst men.”

In short, science is an act of intellectual masturbation without some form of coherent philosophical context behind it.

As I said, assumptions in philosophy are a liability, so they should be limited. If your assumption leads to no conclusions, why make such an assumption?

And I say again. The concept of God is one of these limited and necessary assumptions. No one here is assuming rainbow-colored unicorns that poop magical ice cream that turn you invisible when you eat it.


I'm saying that you should ignore assumptions that don't lead anywhere.

And I say it again. The concept of God leads somewhere. So you should stop projecting your own preferences on outcomes that are clearly and overwhelmingly evident when considering our collective history.

If you definitively discovered that God does not exist, would you commit crimes? Is it your belief in God that prevents you from committing, say, rape and murder?

Let's hypothetically say that ... yes. If I definitively discovered that there is no God or purpose to anything in the Universe beyond what we make of it, I would more likely be committing rape and murder given the cultural disposition to do the same if all and every cultural context if cleared of inherent moral concepts... especially in context where the balance of power would tip in my direction.

Now, the question to you, in that scenario... why would I be wrong in doing those things? Why would rape and murder be wrong for me in certain advantageous context where consequences for me personally are not negative? Where should I draw my personal sense of morality from, especially in context of working structure where I'm free to set double-standards that play into my personal advantage, let's say as a dictator that keeps the moral order by iron fist, but rapes and murders whoever he likes?


So what? If that's the reality we find ourselves in, so be it. It would be an appeal to consequences fallacy to say that reality is as it is merely because of your preferences.

Why would it be a fallacy? What standards would you use to claim that it's false? Would you invoke an appeal to common sense again?

I don't need to justify the fact that having a computer is better than not having one. This is what's called common sense. If you don't start here, there's little need to take you seriously.

Riiiight. You don't have to... Because you can't... so you quickly devolve to appeal to common assumptions and triumphant posturing.

Also, does appeal to common sense work only if God is not a conclusion :).

What a silly thing to say. Assumptions are inventions. So you haven't discovered anything just by making assumptions. Your statement is utterly self-refuting.

These are inventions in a sense of pre-existing pieces that these assembled from. These pre-existing pieces are required for any given assumption we make. Assumptions don't arise in vacuum. These are generally driven by our pre-existing network of knowledge and facts that we derive these assumptions from. And these are derived from reality itself.

So you admit that it doesn't change our scientific method. You say that it changes our perception of reality. What part of that even hints that what you're saying is actually true?

Truth is a concept of internal coherence when it comes to identifying contexts of reality as opposed to our description of these contexts.

Since I can't evaluate certain contexts... all I'm left with is an assumption. In that case....

What hints that what I'm saying that is true is how I personally find any given claim or assumptions fitting in context of other assumptions and facts that constitute my personal network of knowledge, and that of our collective knowledge given the progress of that network of knowledge through human history.

In short... internal conceptual coherence, that's what.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
One can assume some axiomatic view in which Universe doesn't exist, but such an axiom doesn't make the view of reality more coherent in terms of our everyday network of knowledge we share with the rest of humanity.
YES

MODERNISM makes that very assumption!

Axiomatic to modern epistemology from Descartes Cogito, is the problem that my sense perceptions are not directly perceiving the external world, other minds, the past!

So you are trying to talk about epistemology without reference to what we know about epistemology. You are asking us via evidentialism/scientism to reject our intuitions about the world while at the same time demanding we use our intuitions about the world to found belief in an external world, other minds, math and logic.

Math and logic are built on axioms we intuit.

Epistemology of logic and math both have intuitive frameworks in the West that dates back to Plato and more recently Kant.

So you keep on demanding axioms as our starting point that you don't seem to realize are based on INTUITION and then argue that we can't use our INTUITION of things in the world as a way of knowing the world.

Those are logically incoherent, that is to say self-refuting.

And other individuals are saying "Winner?"

I digress.

Modernism: So the reason why we don't ground our beliefs on the external world and other minds etc. is because our perceptions of the outside world can prove false. Our sense perceptions come from supposed objects, that give us some data through our sense organs, that then send data to our brain, that reconstructs the data into some representation. In that process, since it is not direct, error can creep. Since these perceptions are not reliable (on evidentialism/ scientism/ verificationism) they can't be axiomatic as you keep suggesting.

Modernism led to skepticism - See Hume. But we are well-past these intuitions about knowledge. There are few evidentialists/verificationists/Humean skeptics in philosophy departments these days. I have tried to argue why that is the case, but keep running into incoherent responses.

Required reading:

Epistemological Problems of Perception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why would we need to or be required to logically deduce the precursor for logic? How do we get logic to begin with then if you first need to logically validate it? :) There is always an inherent circularity in necessary assumptions.

Your earlier statement about logic and math not being arbitrary is true. They are based on intuitions about the world. Not circular. They seem to be true of all concepts in their respective field. The question epistemologists of math and logic are puzzled about is how it is the case that we have these perceptions of abstract objects at all.

We have some explanation of how we use sense organs to perceive concrete objects, but what is our mind engaging to perceive properties, relationship, etc of abstract objects?

Again, science is founded often on math and using logic. It assumes other epistemologies that are based on intuition.

So science assumes an external world, other minds, the reality of the past, consistency of the laws of nature over time, math is a reliable knowledge base, logic is a reliable knowledge base.

All of those foundations for science are INTUITION-BASED!

So that is why no philosophers of science are epistemically verificationist! And for the same reasons evidentialists.

We have plenty of experts discussing epistemology since 1641. No need to make up a defense. Or intuit these things. Study the history and you can avoid destroying math, logic, science, history,etc. in order to reject religious knowledge. This is the reason atheists have abandoned the evidentialism ship. They are good reasons.

There are good reasons to hold to atheism. But amazingly, evidentialist grew to understand that their epistemology was destroying their own ability to justify atheistic claims, ironically, and so abandoned evidentialism. See Ayers, and Flew.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
So you are trying to talk about epistemology without reference to what we know about epistemology. You are asking us via evidentialism/scientism to reject our intuitions about the world while at the same time demanding we use our intuitions about the world to found belief in an external world, other minds, math and logic.

Where do I do that? I'm a bit confused whether you understand what my position is.

I'm not a proponent of positivism, even though the positivism has its place in context of definable (known) concepts. If we've defined the meaning of a word apple in both spelling and the category of object such word approximates, then positivism works... somewhat imperfectly, but it's more reliable than it's not.

All of those foundations for science are INTUITION-BASED!

I would provisionally agree, pending your definition of INTUITION.

Intuition, as I understand it, is simply another word for mental processes that provide information below conscious awareness. Our "reason" parts of minds actually exists to serve that "intuition" part of our mind, since most of our functional lives is driven by what you would call intuition. For example, you don't pause and calculate the physical variable of reality when you are parking your car or catching a ball. You do that intuitively, just like you don't think about trajectories and force with which you should press the appropriate keys on your keyboard to spell words.

So you keep on demanding axioms as our starting point that you don't seem to realize are based on INTUITION and then argue that we can't use our INTUITION of things in the world as a way of knowing the world.

Where do I do that? Where do I say that we can't use our intuition of the world? Intuition is simply below-conscious response of our mental processes that inform our conscious decisions. I am very confused as to why you would think that.

Most of what we do is intuition-based... which would include most of our motor functions for our bodies, our speech, and a greater-degree of what we would label "reason". So, I'm not quite sure why you think I'm saying that we can't use our intuition? Again, where did I say that :)?

You seem to be arguing against a version of ideas that I don't hold.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Your earlier statement about logic and math not being arbitrary is true. They are based on intuitions about the world. Not circular.

Again, I have no clue what you mean when you speak about intuition. Likewise, about circularity, how do you know that these are based on intuition?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Where do I do that? I'm a bit confused whether you understand what my position is.

I'm not a proponent of positivism, even though the positivism has its place in context of definable (known) concepts. If we've defined the meaning of a word apple in both spelling and the category of object such word approximates, then positivism works... somewhat imperfectly, but it's more reliable than it's not.



I would provisionally agree, pending your definition of INTUITION.

Intuition, as I understand it, is simply another word for mental processes that provide information below conscious awareness. Our "reason" parts of minds actually exists to serve that "intuition" part of our mind, since most of our functional lives is driven by what you would call intuition. For example, you don't pause and calculate the physical variable of reality when you are parking your car or catching a ball. You do that intuitively, just like you don't think about trajectories and force with which you should press the appropriate keys on your keyboard to spell words.



Where do I do that? Where do I say that we can't use our intuition of the world? Intuition is simply below-conscious response of our mental processes that inform our conscious decisions. I am very confused as to why you would think that.

Most of what we do is intuition-based... which would include most of our motor functions for our bodies, our speech, and a greater-degree of what we would label "reason". So, I'm not quite sure why you think I'm saying that we can't use our intuition? Again, where did I say that :)?

You seem to be arguing against a version of ideas that I don't hold.
Evidentialism approach is useful and even necessary in a scope of a framework built on some chain of axioms.

We are talking at cross-purposes and it is my fault. I have several people on this thread on "Ignore" due to goading and therefore don't get to see everything you wrote in context. Once I turned on "Show Ignored Content" it became clear to me that you don't hold to the Religious Evidentialism common in the 19th century and that occurs in the video in the form of verificationism.

I created a strawman out of your coherentism based on false beliefs gained from reading your comments out of context. I apologize.

I wrongly thought you to hold to evidentialism (al la Clifford). I will be more careful to select "Show Ignored Content," in the future. I appreciate your patience with my misrepresentations. I have decided to leave them up to demonstrate my folly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Simply because there are vague and undefined concepts doesn't mean that all of concepts are vague and undefined.

Yes it does. Everything in mathematics is defined in terms of undefined symbols. Hence any expression in mathematics reduces to a string of undefined symbols. A string of undefined symbols is undefined.

Even in a case of zero or empty set there is a reason why there is no formal definition, because it communicates lack and not presence of something.

This is why you shouldn't argue when you don't understand the conversation. 0 is not nothing. Ø is not nothing. Further, there are other undefined symbols and notions, depending on which axiomatic system you're using.

It doesn't, however, translate into that concept lacking meaning. The mere fact that you can recognize it means that it does have some meaning attached to it in framework of knowledge that you are referencing. It exists because it's used to communicate something.

False. Learn set theory and get back to me. Stop saying that every mathematician on earth is wrong.



Why would we need to or be required to logically deduce the precursor for logic?

Well, can you physically detect it? You're saying it exists. Abstract concepts that "exist" are deduced logically or assumed as an axiom. Axioms which derive no true statement within a system are absolutely worthless.

How do we get logic to begin with then if you first need to logically validate it?

Your question contains a falsehood. We don't logically validate logic. We use logic to logically validate everything else.

We have an idea of how long a meter is. We use that idea to make rulers. What we don't do is use a ruler to correct our predetermined idea of a meter. Where did we get the idea of a meter? We made it up, plain and simple. No god requried.

:) There is always an inherent circularity in necessary assumptions.

Not if you use axioms.



You are making a category error here. It's like saying that carpentry does nothing for advancing technology of computers. Well it does and it doesn't, depending on context you view it in. It does, because it contributes to societal infrastructure, which in turn feeds into tech development. If you remove carpentry from history of humanity, we wouldn't likely have computers, because carpentry is a technological precursor to early building. It's a necessary block of human technological development.

You're the one making a category error. Carpentry obviously has technological value. God's assumed existence does not.

It's the same with religion and God concepts, and that's one of the reasons why I can't take you seriously when you make claims like these.

Lol.

But no, really, go learn set theory.

These are not atheistic claims. These are anti-theistic claims.

Therefore...?

Even Nietzsche wouldn't deny religion's contribution to humanity.

Thus...?

You seem to take a leap and say that that concept is useless :), and that's one of the reasons I can't take you seriously. It's a comment of immense ignorance of historical development of humankind.

And yet you give me analogies instead of direct examples.

Show me one small part of human development, be it in knowledge, technology, or society, where the assumption of God's existence directly contributed.

You can't. And even if you could, we are clearly past that. So there's no conceivable use to religion.

As a small and isolated example:

“Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams, the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men! Through it, God will spread His Word. A spring of truth shall flow from it: Like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light heretofore unknown to shine amongst men.”

Ok so... I'm looking at the schematics of the printing press... the step-by-step instructions... hmmmm... oh, there it is. "Assume God exists." Gosh, you were right all along!

In short, science is an act of intellectual masturbation without some form of coherent philosophical context behind it.

Right. Of course it is. Making technology to better the human race and predicting natural events for our benefit really isn't just quite enough all on its own. We do really need something more... maybe an assumption that is unverifiable by any means conceivable and which, even when granted as true, leads to nothing at all. Yep. That's what completes science.



And I say again. The concept of God is one of these limited and necessary assumptions. No one here is assuming rainbow-colored unicorns that poop magical ice cream that turn you invisible when you eat it.

Me: Necessary for what?
You: It's the reason for reason.
Me: Do you even set theory, bro?

I do not care how many times you say it. You don't know what you're talking about.




And I say it again.

Who cares?

The concept of God leads somewhere.

No it doesn't. Learn set theory.

So you should stop projecting your own preferences on outcomes that are clearly and overwhelmingly evident when considering our collective history.



Let's hypothetically say that ... yes. If I definitively discovered that there is no God or purpose to anything in the Universe beyond what we make of it, I would more likely be committing rape and murder given the cultural disposition to do the same if all and every cultural context if cleared of inherent moral concepts... especially in context where the balance of power would tip in my direction.

Now, the question to you, in that scenario... why would I be wrong in doing those things? Why would rape and murder be wrong for me in certain advantageous context where consequences for me personally are not negative? Where should I draw my personal sense of morality from, especially in context of working structure where I'm free to set double-standards that play into my personal advantage, let's say as a dictator that keeps the moral order by iron fist, but rapes and murders whoever he likes?

There's nothing I can say or do that will suddenly bestow empathy on a psychopath. Your taste buds are supposed to prevent you from eating spoonfuls of salt. If that isn't the case for you, there's nothing I can do about it. Your empathy should prevent you from wanting to rape and murder. And gosh, if this isn't common ground, I don't know what is.



Why would it be a fallacy? What standards would you use to claim that it's false? Would you invoke an appeal to common sense again?

Catch up. It's logic. We're all here waiting for you.

Your entire premise here is a logical fallacy. Oh but you don't care because you want me to give an explanation of where logic "comes from." I told you and you reject my explanation despite your deficiency in the field of logic and mathematics. But guess what. Even if logic "comes from" something, and even if I don't know what that is or how it works, I'm still pointing out your logical fallacy. We don't know where gravity comes from... does that mean we're barred from discussing gravity or making predictions?

You want the world to exist in a certain way, so you assume it does. How silly is that? Should you assume that gravity will stop working if you jump off a 20-story building?



Riiiight. You don't have to... Because you can't... so you quickly devolve to appeal to common assumptions and triumphant posturing.

Logical reasoning only goes so far. I've been excruciatingly explicit on this point with regards to Ø. Why is owning a computer better than no computer? Because computers bring pleasure. But why is pleasure good? I don't know... maybe go eat a bowl of salt, see how that goes. For the rest of us, we want pleasure and we don't see the need to explain why.

BTW learn set theory or concede the point.

Also, does appeal to common sense work only if God is not a conclusion :).

Is that a question?


These are inventions in a sense of pre-existing pieces that these assembled from. These pre-existing pieces are required for any given assumption we make. Assumptions don't arise in vacuum. These are generally driven by our pre-existing network of knowledge and facts that we derive these assumptions from. And these are derived from reality itself.

Correct.



Truth is a concept of internal coherence when it comes to identifying contexts of reality as opposed to our description of these contexts.

Since I can't evaluate certain contexts... all I'm left with is an assumption. In that case....

What hints that what I'm saying that is true is how I personally find any given claim or assumptions fitting in context of other assumptions and facts that constitute my personal network of knowledge, and that of our collective knowledge given the progress of that network of knowledge through human history.

In short... internal conceptual coherence, that's what.

This here is pretty much a bunch of fluff. I don't care what's "true for you." I care about what's true of reality. So you can assume that your preferences are true all you like, but reality will be doing its own thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
This here is pretty much a bunch of fluff. I don't care what's "true for you." I care about what's true of reality. So you can assume that your preferences are true all you like, but reality will be doing its own thing.

Let's focus on this for a moment.

True in what sense? Truth is a concept of fidelity to a standard, hence a truth can only exist in context of a standard. A standard is something that only conscious minds ascribe to entities and events that project meaning on otherwise arbitrary reality, like in your example of a meter. Only in a context or a set standard you can then compare someone's claim to be 2 meters tall. Absent of set standard... A meter is meaningless concept that communicates vacuous length.

Now, either reality is arbitrary, or it's not. If it's not, that means it does have standards to be recognized. And if it has standards to be recognized, it means that these standards are sourced from some intelligent agent, or you have to embed intelligence into reality itself. Either one, with latter being pantheistic concept, is the baseline assumption for God, and the utility of that assumption is the concept of truth that can't exist absent of that concept.

Of course, you are free to be triumphantly dismissive... but I likewise don't care much, unless you can provide a viable concept of "true" that you are talking about. I certainly would like to see you try.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,657
6,143
Erewhon
Visit site
✟1,109,555.00
Faith
Atheist
"Standard" here is a red herring. To the extent a statement reflects reality, it is "true".

Such a thing as a meter is an agreed upon standard of communication. A thing is as long as it is. It is truly that length. It is what it is. Is it a meter? Only in as much as our standard for meter matches it's length.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let's focus on this for a moment.

True in what sense? Truth is a concept of fidelity to a standard, hence a truth can only exist in context of a standard. A standard is something that only conscious minds ascribe to entities and events that project meaning on otherwise arbitrary reality, like in your example of a meter. Only in a context or a set standard you can then compare someone's claim to be 2 meters tall. Absent of set standard... A meter is meaningless concept that communicates vacuous length.

Now, either reality is arbitrary, or it's not. If it's not, that means it does have standards to be recognized. And if it has standards to be recognized, it means that these standards are sourced from some intelligent agent, or you have to embed intelligence into reality itself. Either one, with latter being pantheistic concept, is the baseline assumption for God, and the utility of that assumption is the concept of truth that can't exist absent of that concept.

Of course, you are free to be triumphantly dismissive... but I likewise don't care much, unless you can provide a viable concept of "true" that you are talking about. I certainly would like to see you try.

All I can do is invite you to learn logic and catch up to the rest of us. "True" is a primitive notion. Otherwise we could only say that "true" means "not false" and "false" means "not true." We can only have circularity or undefined foundations. There's no other option.

Your insistence that you are right and that 100% of all mathematicians and logicians on earth are wrong about a topic you never even heard of is what I would call the pinnacle of "errorgance."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"Standard" here is a red herring. To the extent a statement reflects reality, it is "true".

Such a thing as a meter is an agreed upon standard of communication. A thing is as long as it is. It is truly that length. It is what it is. Is it a meter? Only in as much as our standard for meter matches it's length.

He's been rambling about some fictional precursor to logic, or a "reason for reason." If he's now shifted to epistemology, then his points are comically disjointed.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
He's been rambling about some fictional precursor to logic, or a "reason for reason." If he's now shifted to epistemology, then his points are comically disjointed.
Is your statement true?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
All I can do is invite you to learn logic and catch up to the rest of us. "True" is a primitive notion. Otherwise we could only say that "true" means "not false" and "false" means "not true." We can only have circularity or undefined foundations. There's no other option.

Your insistence that you are right and that 100% of all mathematicians and logicians on earth are wrong about a topic you never even heard of is what I would call the pinnacle of "errorgance."
Again, is your statement true?

For a 50+ page scholarly article just on the correspondence theory of truth see:

The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Sorry did you say "True" was primitive?

Why appeal to sophistication instead of engage the definition to gain understanding and agreement if possible?

Your goading seems to be aimed at appeals to emotion.

There are meaningful differences in the theory of truth and epistemology. If we don't come to some agreements we will not make any progress knowledge-wise.

If you want to defend a post-modern idea of truth then by all means give an argument for why it is true that there is no such thing as truth.
 
Upvote 0