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.
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.
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.
Generally speaking, yes.
Let me ask you this: Do you tend to believe everything anyone tells you?
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.
That would be a book written by men.
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.
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:
- Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)
- Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
- I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
- 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?
Must you resort to straw men arguments? (It would appear so)<snip>
Science is the only way to know about reality (Can you scientifically prove that?)
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?Of course not.
What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.
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:
- Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)
- Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
- I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
- Science is the only way to know about reality (Can you scientifically prove that?)
Of course not.
What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.
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.Of course not.
What I do maintain is that empiricism has definite limitations. Limitations that empiricists are loathe to admit to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?