Then what does Platonic metaphysics say different that gets it labeled as such.
But there is not any evidence in metaphysics.
God can know you like you know an apple in your hand. It doesnt matter how much we change, we dont leave the hand of God.[/FONT]
That's pretty, but doesn't explain anything. If we change, if we're created, and destroyed, how can an unchanging God, who cannot learn, who cannot think, who can assess, in effect, cannot change, know us?
It the conventional sense of the word it does nothing, its at rest. I dont know what you mean by how do I know what it is.
So it does nothing. We don't know what it is. We can't observe it. So, how can we possibly know it's there?
What changes about the activity of the sun when the earth is facing one direction and facing 180? Or the difference in the activity on the side of the sun facing the earth and the side facing away?
What the sun is shining on, obviously.
You should be skeptical of your perception, instead of putting absolute faith in it because it is only showing you a partial picture.
Agreed. However, none of us can objectively agree on what the rest of that picture is. So, why don't we just admit that we don't know?
A distinguishable object has a combination of parts that are both in motion and at rest to produce the whole. In that way the duality can be overcome in an individual but each part is either in motion or at rest. I would consider the possibility of there being a third option I cant imagine but nobody else has came up with anything either in over 2000 years so Im fairly comfortable that belief is justified. To consider another option I would need an actual reason beyond your blind skepticism.
I'm not saying consider the third (or forth, or so on) option, only that it might exist. Without evidence, you can't show that you're correct while there might still be other as yet "unimaginable" options.
It justifies the belief though, even if it doesnt empirically prove the alternative.
Sure. But you can't dump on me because I don't accept either one.
Yes it does lead to that conclusion unless you can explain why. Beyond you havent been empirically shown you cant see something at rest.
Firstly, I have explained, and painstaking length, why your logic is lacking. It is your claim that that which cannot be perceived is not in motion, and, it is your claim that something that is not in motion cannot be perceived. So you have to show evidence that both of those premises are true. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim (that's you).
You can but the suggestion isnt relevant to the set. The set isnt addressing if spirit exists but if we should be looking for something in motion or at rest.
Oh, well then first you have to provide evidence that spirits exist.
I dont expect you to define a football team or have previous knowledge of them. I expect you to know they dont make music so they dont use musical instruments. What the football team actually does isnt an issue with the set, beyond they dont make music by using instruments.
No, your logic stated that football teams don't make music, therefore they don't use musical instruments. Your logic set assumes either that we know that musical instruments can only be used to make music, or that football teams don't use musical instruments (which would be the circular reasoning).
The empirical evidence shows a body that needs physical change to respond to, which means we are limited to perceive what changes. Unless you have seen evidence of something else? Knowing our perception is limited to what changes, if we cant perceive something that actually exists, then we know it doesnt change.
That's a reasonable assumption, but we can't make the conclusion. We don't have access to an environment where nothing changes. We have no way of knowing how we might perceive something in that environment. While we can say that we can observe things that change, we don't know that we can't perceive things that don't change. I agree that it's probable that we can't perceive it, but can't claim it as a fact.
Yeah sure. The kid asking why of their parents just naturally evolved to prove-it empirically I agree that you should be skeptical but you are blinded because of your faith in empirical evidence, which isnt something a child naturally develops without the example to follow. Those examples are commonplace so the idea that you picked up this bad habit from your atheist peers/idols shouldnt come as too grandiose a claim.
I didn't learn this from atheists at all, in fact I learned it from my Jewish high school chemistry teacher. And then my Buddhist philosophy prof, my Christian psych prof, and my Christian logic prof. They understand the difference between belief, and fact.
I also learned from a couple of religious scam artists who taught me that if someone makes a claim of fact, you shouldn't trust them on it.
You have a bias that says you need empirical evidence to have a reasonable opinion. That bias is your issue to address when you are ready to deal with it.
A rational opinion. There's a difference.
What personal experience have i went to evidence for? What other fallacies have I committed?
I have no idea what your experience is, but you're getting these claims from somewhere, and it clearly isn't any type of evidence.
You should expand your vocabulary so that you can differentiate between believing in the laws of the universe and believing in Dracula is synonymous.
I don't have a clue what your talking about, but it sounds neat.
What kind of logic are you using there that from one premise you can suggest that an unbiased opinion cant be had unless there is empirical evidence?
If your claim is coming exclusively from the mind, then it is all subject to bias. It's not that it necessarily isn't rational, but we have no way of knowing whether it is or not, so we should assume it's not before we start claiming it as truth. If it is to be a rational fact (without bias) it would need to be rooted in some sort of physical evidence which is true regardless of personal bias. Hopefully a lot of physical evidence.
Again, no reason to believe contrary. Your lack of an opinion on this doesn't matter, only if you can articulate any reason to believe otherwise.
No, again you are the person making the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not for me to prove otherwise. You can believe all of this if you'd like, but you cannot fault me at all for not believing it.
See? Not the idealist I was thinking of. Explain why a materialist can't believe in the theory of forms? Read up on Pythagoras.
I would recommend you lead by example, instead of making demands you willing refuse to even attempt to meet.
They're your claims, I'm just explaining why I don't believe them.
No that is arguing a lack of evidence of the contrary. Im arguing a lack of another rational possibility. It would be like seeing a bear in a tree in the woods and I suggest that he climbed up there, while you suggest that there could be other alternatives. If you cant articulate a rational alternative then the bear climbed up the tree is the rational belief you should have about the situation.
Perhaps the bear was being airlifted to an animal sanctuary when he escaped and fell into the tree. Perhaps the bear climbed up a cliff near the tree, and fell onto it.
How do I know if they are true unless it falls inline with what I already accept as reality? If someone shows me a crop circle, should I believe an alien came or that they are lying?
Of course, not. I would ask how they know the crop circle was made by aliens.
Should I trust the evidence or my previously held worldview?
No, maybe they can show you the aliens actually making another crop circle. Or maybe you can show that people can make crop circles on their own as a prank, and explain that that's why their "evidence" isn't convincing.
Dont you only accept things as true if it falls inline with your worldview that empirical evidence equals the truth?
No, my worldview could be wrong, and honestly, probably is from time to time. I spent years, re-examining my worldview and saw that it was wrong. That's a pretty humbling experience, not I try not to be too comfortable with my world view.
I would pray at this point in the conversation you would realize why that would be the case. Do you yet?
No. Please, enlighten me with evidence.
You have no more reason to believe that is a bigger claim then the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. Have you questioned that idea with the same level of skepticism? If not, why?
I am no more inclined to believe that the universe has existed for an infinte amount of time. But I would suggest that it is at least possible as any God concept.
The difference is that Im not appealing to their authority but to you educating yourself on this conversation so you are informed about this discussion and what actual socratic irony looks like in work, so you dont assume your game is in imitation of that.
Maybe it is. So what?
Its not about believing them but about educating yourself on the fundamental texts that shaped, not only this conversation but our culture.
That may be so, but unless these books contain facts, they contribute nothing to the conversation. This is a conversation about what is factual is it not? Otherwise, I would suggest reading the Uppanishads, the Tao Te Ching, or other texts of Vedic philosophers. They had a different view that is no less right or wrong. But you're not about to educated yourself on that point of view, are you?
I will take the weak explanation, over no explanation at all. If you are truly comfortable with being in a state of opinion-less bliss, as you would like me to believe, then more power to you.
That's my point. You can sit on your weak explanation, and your current worldview. I will continue to look.
I would like to see previous evidence of this being successful with you so I know why you assume this to be the case.
I was taught to hate Jews, non-whites and gays in my youth, and honestly did. Then I found out my best friend was gay, and the only person who stood by him was a Jew. It forced me to question everything I thought I knew, and everything I had been taught. In the end, I married a Jew, my best friends are a gay couple, and my research partner is Muslim.
Thats a hard bias to overcome. I dont think there is any way to have a rational conversation with someone whose fundamental belief is they cant understand the subject matter.
It's downright impossible. But I have a very good understanding of logic, evidence, and deductive reasoning, which is the conversation we are having.
It does explain a lot of the problems I have been having with communication. Im of the other school, that says we can understand anything if we approach it rationally, even an unknowable God.
You can rationalize the unknowable?
[/quote]I do have the habit of pigeonholing people and sorry that will be the case until you prove you can do more than imitate their common fallacies.[/quote]
Really? Name the fallacy. Requiring evidence for a claim, any claim, is not a fallacy.
That is a completely absurd picture of the atheist you think I have though, the atheists I know rarely eat babies. I dont think you hate God but to be blunt, I dont think you have been working with the most informed understanding.
Yes it is an absurd picture, but it is no more absurd than the one you've been using for me for the entirety of the conversation.
