Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

[KCfromNC]

Do you believe in the view expressed in the following proposition:

If a statement cannot be empirically verified, then we should disregard the statement.

None of this seems to be the empirical evidence asked for either. It is almost as if none exists, and certain posters are trying very hard to change the subject to anything else.

It's strange that threads which start with optimistic promises about evidence for gods always seem to end up somewhere else.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

None of this seems to be the empirical evidence asked for either. It is almost as if none exists, and certain posters are trying very hard to change the subject to anything else.

It's strange that threads which start with optimistic promises about evidence for gods always seem to end up somewhere else.

As arguments from incredulity always do. What's funny though, is that they've convinced themselves, but just can't grasp why we don't buy it.

 

[KCfromNC]

As arguments from incredulity always do. What's funny though, is that they've convinced themselves, but just can't grasp why we don't buy it.

When you know you're right, working backwards to the reasons for that certainty are a mere formality I guess.

 

[Elioenai26]

Generally speaking, yes.

You do realize that your view is self-refuting do you not? It is self-refuting because the statement itself cannot be empirically verified. It fails to meet its own standard and therefore is self-refuting.

You need to abandon it for a more sustainable methodology.

Let me ask you this: Do you tend to believe everything anyone tells you?

Of course not. A lot of what you say, like the view that only that which can be empirically verified should be regarded as true, I do not believe because it is necessarily false.

So no, I do not believe everything anyone tells me.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

You do realize that your view is self-refuting do you not? It is self-refuting because the statement itself cannot be empirically verified. It fails to meet its own standard and therefore is self-refuting.

You need to abandon it for a more sustainable methodology.



Of course not. A lot of what you say, like the view that only that which can be empirically verified should be regarded as true, I do not believe because it is necessarily false.

So no, I do not believe everything anyone tells me.

You seem to be chasing your tail a bit and confused as to why empiricism is important. See if this helps. There is great value in basing your opinions and beliefs on those things which can be independently verified. Personal beliefs should be a continuum, with falsehoods and unfounded claims at one end, and evidence and supportable claims on the other. As a human, I am morally obligated to educate myself and move towards claims that have evidentiary support so my beliefs can be justified. This is where PEARL is relevant to one's beliefs. Accepting things as we find them to be can be difficult, I realize, for the Believer. To see things as they really are takes some courage, but it is a more noble position, IMO.

 

[Gadarene]

PEARL is most certainly not assumption free, iirc, which is elio's mistake.

 

[Loudmouth]

God's testimony.

That would be a book written by men.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That would be a book written by men.

They seem to gloss over this fact, don't they?

 

[pjnlsn]

You do realize that your view is self-refuting do you not? It is self-refuting because the statement itself cannot be empirically verified. It fails to meet its own standard and therefore is self-refuting.

You need to abandon it for a more sustainable methodology.

It's not self-refuting. Indeed, the only way it might appear to be is if one applied an action which is itself illogical.

And, indeed, it may be that all general methods of judging knowledge are not sustainable, in your words. Though this is irrelevant to the original issue.

And furthermore, knowledge based in empiricism tends to be far, far more valuable in the understanding of reality, accurately, than what your belief in a deity is based on.

Of course not. A lot of what you say, like the view that only that which can be empirically verified should be regarded as true, I do not believe because it is necessarily false.

So no, I do not believe everything anyone tells me.

And yet, as for a concept which features at the forefront of what you do believe, that of a deity, traditional or otherwise: "In the most general sense possible, the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

 

[Elioenai26]

It's not self-refuting.

The proposition (P):

(P) If a statement cannot be empirically verified, then we should disregard the statement.

If we are to take this proposition as a truth bearing proposition, then we are to disregard the proposition because its truthfulness cannot be empirically verified.

Thus it fails to meet its own criteria of verification.

In his Introduction to Logic, Harry Gensler defines a self-refuting statement as “[A] statement that makes negative claims so sweeping that it ends up denying itself.” [1] In other words, it results when an argument or position is undercut by its own criteria (An example of this would be saying, “I cannot speak a word of English” in English).

Here is a small list of other self refuting statements:

1. Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)
2. Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
3. I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
4. Science is the only way to know about reality (Can you scientifically prove that?)

 

[Elioenai26]

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The proposition (P):

(P) If a statement cannot be empirically verified, then we should disregard the statement.

If we are to take this proposition as a truth bearing proposition, then we are to disregard the proposition because its truthfulness cannot be empirically verified.

Thus it fails to meet its own criteria of verification.

In his Introduction to Logic, Harry Gensler defines a self-refuting statement as “[A] statement that makes negative claims so sweeping that it ends up denying itself.” [1] In other words, it results when an argument or position is undercut by its own criteria (An example of this would be saying, “I cannot speak a word of English” in English).

Here is a small list of other self refuting statements:

1. Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)
2. Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
3. I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
4. Science is the only way to know about reality (Can you scientifically prove that?)

So you would disregard all things empirically verified out of hand, because of a philosophical proposition?

Again your attempt to muddy the water is a clear indication you've run out of argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you would disregard all things empirically verified out of hand, because of a philosophical proposition?

Of course not.

What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.

 

[Davian]

<snip>
Science is the only way to know about reality (Can you scientifically prove that?)

Must you resort to straw men arguments? (It would appear so)

Science is the most *reliable* way to gather knowledge about reality.

Science doesn't 'prove' things.

You were asked to provide evidentiary support for your statement, here. Do you retract that statement?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Of course not.

What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.

Could you name one empirical limitation that I would be loathe to admit?

 

[Davian]

Of course not.

What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.

Are you going to again post a bunch of quote mines from scientists that have mentioned 'god' at some time in their career?

 

[pjnlsn]

The proposition (P):

(P) If a statement cannot be empirically verified, then we should disregard the statement.

If we are to take this proposition as a truth bearing proposition, then we are to disregard the proposition because its truthfulness cannot be empirically verified.

Thus it fails to meet its own criteria of verification.

In his Introduction to Logic, Harry Gensler defines a self-refuting statement as “[A] statement that makes negative claims so sweeping that it ends up denying itself.” [1] In other words, it results when an argument or position is undercut by its own criteria (An example of this would be saying, “I cannot speak a word of English” in English).

Here is a small list of other self refuting statements:

1. Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)
2. Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
3. I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
4. Science is the only way to know about reality (Can you scientifically prove that?)

Well, that's oddly thoughtful of you, but the 'view' of many in the thread, including me, and which is also true, is actually that empirical evidence is valuable, which is different.

One description, slightly incomplete, of that view is, yes, that "If a statement cannot be empirically verified, then we should disregard the statement."

And perhaps if you apply it to itself it ends up contradicting itself. But if in pointing this out you intended such to reflect on the truth of the view itself, it does not, and to say so is an argument based on semantics. The view you reference is I suppose more accurately phrased like this: "If a statement, apart from this one, cannot be empirically verified, then we should disregard the statement."

Your entire post is pretty meaningless, even if on the surface it appears to be something else. The phrase 'blinding with science' comes to mind, with logic used instead.

P.S. Now, if you were just pointing out (in a very roundabout, indirect way) that all general criteria of judging knowledge involve an assumption at some point, then so be it. It is still true that knowledge based in empiricism tends to be far, far more valuable in the understanding of reality, accurately, than what your belief in a deity is based on.

Even if there is no absolute, binding justification for this.

 

[pjnlsn]

Of course not.

What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.

And while, per one interpretation of the above, the general Scientific process doesn't know how to approach claims which have no or very little substance, such as the deity you believe in, this doesn't make it any more justified than it has been, as I've described.

And a more general interpretation of the above would simply not apply to the original issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not.

What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.

Adding more empty assertions to your argument is not helping.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Of course not.

What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.

That is a positive claim, please substantiate it or retract it.