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.
I think you can for such self-referential claims as "I claim the words I am writing now comprise a sentence".You cannot make any positive statement regarding the truth of a claim only based on the claim.
I would agree partially. Self-referential stuff can lead to some very weird results in logic. For some statements it works the way it does. For some it doesn't.I think you can for such self-referential claims as "I claim the words I am writing now comprise a sentence".
If I threw an atheist off a cliff, it doesn't matter what he thinks he believes or disbelieves, he's still going to fall. So there certainly is an objective reality.
It's statements like the above that cause confusion. How else do human's gain knowledge about what objectively exists other than by viewing it and thinking about what objectively exists from their individual subjective perspective?
Your statement implies that I should be able to gain knowledge without using my subjective abilities to understand the world, but how would this be possible?
If it's not possible then what you've said above is actually wrong and we actually do gain knowledge subjectively because it's the only way to gain knowledge.
Agreed. Which is one reason I've always said truth claims are objective evidence. The reason this is true is because when a truth claim is made, it exists in objective reality just like everything else in objective reality.
There are still many people, both theist and atheist who do not agree with that.
I think you can for such self-referential claims as "I claim the words I am writing now comprise a sentence".
I prefer funny at your expense.
Did you read the rest of my post? If you did you already know the answer...science.
Science!
It's possible! It's called science! Ever heard of it? It's an amazing thing....look into it.
Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??When you say this, you're implying that science allows us to be perfectly objective, but this is not true because there's always a degree of subjectivity in scientific knowledge because human's cannot be perfectly objective in of themselves.
Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??
It's hard for me to believe you're not deliberately being obtuse. So I'll just say "good one!"So science does allow us to be perfectly objective about specific scientific tests? Assuming there was no fault in the equipment or contamination?
I would think perfect objectivity would already know faults in equipment or contamination and would be able to prevent these things from affecting the test results. Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.
Religious?Hmmm, I think there's a word for people who think throwing atheists off cliffs is funny...
So science does allow us to be perfectly objective about specific scientific tests? Assuming there was no fault in the equipment or contamination?
I would think perfect objectivity would already know faults in equipment or contamination and would be able to prevent these things from affecting the test results. Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.
I agree but would perhaps express it differently. Clearly, scientists are subject to bias. But the attractive feature of science is that the "rules" that govern corporate scientific activity - science as conducted by the community of scientists - act as a powerful control mechanism that significantly attenuates the effects of personal bias.Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??
I've asked this question several times to you and I think you've ignored it every time:
What do you hope to gain if no atheist is ever going to listen to your fallacious arguments?
This statement appears to imply that we do not need to conduct empirical investigations to discover truths about the world. Almost no one believes this, I suggest.Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.
When you say this, you're implying that science allows us to be perfectly objective, but this is not true because there's always a degree of subjectivity in scientific knowledge because human's cannot be perfectly objective in of themselves.
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?