Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Facts for evolutionists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chalnoth" data-source="post: 48444548" data-attributes="member: 159254"><p>You can't define something by what it's not, though. And you also haven't defined what is meant by "material".</p><p></p><p>Do you honestly think I'm wrong when I state that something that is "material" can be adequately described as something that can be defined explicitly? That something that is supernatural is so precisely because it contains an ineffable quality, that it can't be described explicitly?</p><p></p><p></p><p>The primary problem with strict positivism is that it neglects mathematical and logical truths. There are two sorts of possible truths: tautologies and contingent truths. Tautologies like valid mathematical and logical statements need not directly connect to any particular observation or experience, because they are merely true or false by the definitions used. They are, in effect, self-consistent systems of thought that do not need to be related to anything.</p><p></p><p>The other sort of truth is an accurate description of reality. Any time we attempt to make an accurate statement about something that exists in any meaningful sense, that statement has meaning if and only if there is some potentially-observable consequence depending upon whether it is true or false. Else it is just an exercise in mental masturbation: a claim to talk about reality, but a failure to say anything of any actual meaning. In this sense, the positivists were absolutely correct, though they went too far in demanding verification. This is unnecessary: all that is necessary is for there to be some observable differences if the proposal is true versus if it is false.</p><p></p><p>Any time the religious define their god so that there are such observable differences, they invariably turn out to be false. Any time they define god such that there is no such possibility, they fail to say anything at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chalnoth, post: 48444548, member: 159254"] You can't define something by what it's not, though. And you also haven't defined what is meant by "material". Do you honestly think I'm wrong when I state that something that is "material" can be adequately described as something that can be defined explicitly? That something that is supernatural is so precisely because it contains an ineffable quality, that it can't be described explicitly? The primary problem with strict positivism is that it neglects mathematical and logical truths. There are two sorts of possible truths: tautologies and contingent truths. Tautologies like valid mathematical and logical statements need not directly connect to any particular observation or experience, because they are merely true or false by the definitions used. They are, in effect, self-consistent systems of thought that do not need to be related to anything. The other sort of truth is an accurate description of reality. Any time we attempt to make an accurate statement about something that exists in any meaningful sense, that statement has meaning if and only if there is some potentially-observable consequence depending upon whether it is true or false. Else it is just an exercise in mental masturbation: a claim to talk about reality, but a failure to say anything of any actual meaning. In this sense, the positivists were absolutely correct, though they went too far in demanding verification. This is unnecessary: all that is necessary is for there to be some observable differences if the proposal is true versus if it is false. Any time the religious define their god so that there are such observable differences, they invariably turn out to be false. Any time they define god such that there is no such possibility, they fail to say anything at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Facts for evolutionists
Top
Bottom