Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Empiricism uber alles?

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    Dude you were the one who brought up personal revelation as distinct from opinion.

    To be discussed within the context of an OP.

    You have refused to define that difference or how to tell the difference.

    I have tried to refuse being drawn out of the context of the OP. Otherwise, what was the point of the OP?
    You are claiming that personal revelation is as valid as empiricism,

    Indeed, a conclusion drawn by the argument in the OP
    but have admitted that it's only as valid as opinion because you can't prove it to another person.

    To the person who is not prepared to engage within the confines stressed by the OP.
    But if you want to pretend I'm dodging questions......

    I'm not pretending. You are. Perhaps inadvertantly. But it's the OP perpsective you need to thread your atheist vierwpoint through .. or nought.

    Such are threads.


  • Options
    #183
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    No you haven't.

    I have ..to Wicknight. Copy it, paste it, argue against it. Don't tell me "no I haven't" or else we won't be discussing for much longer.


  • Options
    #184
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    G'night

    :)


  • Options
    #185
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To be discussed within the context of an OP.
    And how is the difference between opinion and revelation off topic exactly?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I have tried to refuse being drawn out of the context of the OP. Otherwise, what was the point of the OP?
    To clarify the point you're trying to make.

    There is a huge logical problem in your point.
    There is no difference between revelation and stuff you make up.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Indeed, a conclusion drawn by the argument in the OP
    Which is flawed because the premise is flawed.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To the person who is not prepared to engage within the confines stressed by the OP.
    You're not really making any sense.

    You said that another person can't verify someone's personal revelations.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not pretending. You are. Perhaps inadvertantly. But it's the OP perpsective you need to thread your atheist vierwpoint through .. or nought.
    And that's what I am doing.
    Even if God is empirically prove, personal opinion and revelation are still indistinguishable.

    How do you back up your claim that they are different?

    The whole "it's not in the OP" is a silly excuse to ignore questions you cannot answer.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I have ..to Wicknight. Copy it, paste it, argue against it. Don't tell me "no I haven't" or else we won't be discussing for much longer.
    You haven't defined the difference or explained how to identify the difference.
    Show me were you did.


  • Options
    #186
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    antiskeptic:

    As atheists, God has not revealed himself to us. With hundreds of thousands of different religions/beliefs, there's no way of telling who's deluded and who, if anyone, has genuinely had personal revelation.

    Either one religion is right or none of them are. Most atheists accept that one religion may be true, but lean towards none of them being true because there is nothing to distinguish any religion from another and without any empirical evidence, which we use in every facet of life to determine probable truths, the most obvious answer is none of them are true.

    And this is why we diss religion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    This 'dilemma' is only a dilemma if you assume that god exists. If you don't have this assumption then the whole argument falls apart.

    It reminds me of one time I heard David Quinn in a debate on radio with, I think it was Hitchens, claim that because matter exists, god exists. He seemed to think that this was a self-evident argument, and an inaguable proof for his position, not realising that he had absolutely nothing.

    Antiskeptic's replies to perfectly reasonable objections are among the most smug, dismissive and self-satisfied - without any good reason - i have read on this site. I have no problem engaging with believers, I actually think that it is important, but only when they have something meaningful to say. This is not one of those cases.


  • Options
    #188
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    What's inconsistant about different tools for different types of goals?

    The goals aren't different, the goal (singular) is knowledge.

    If God wanted personal revelation the way humans develop accurate knowledge he would have made it the way humans develop accurate knowledge

    He didn't.

    Saying God would still use personal revelation to impart knowledge about his existence when personal revelation is so flawed (by his design) is like saying I would invent a computer and then try and work out the US census statistics on an abacus. It is totally illogical.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Perhaps he will.
    He won't because that would mean his earlier statements and actions were untrue. God is consistent, he doesn't lie or change his mind.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It's not up to me to "tell the difference" when God is the one who is soley responsible for all aspects of the position I find myself in
    Yes it is. Again if you don't like the way God made you complain to God.

    But like it or not God made you to have the ability to assess the accuracy of concepts and to judge for yourself which are true or not.

    Otherwise we would just be non-intelligent robots.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Possilbe but extraneous to OP possibility. Thus not dealing with the OP's possibility.

    We are assuming the God of the Bible exists and thus he made everything. Not irrelevant.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Connected to, and based on above extraneous possibility.
    You can keep saying that, doesn't make it any more true.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You continue in this vein so perhaps the best thing to do is concentrate on the central tenet of our position. I've already given you the case for the difference between personal revelation / opinion.

    You have? I must have missed that.

    How do you tell the different between mistaken personal opinion and God revealing himself to you.

    Saying you don't is just dodging the question, since logically you would have to in order to assess that it was revelation. Blame God for that not me.

    God can't assess that for you as that is a logical impossibility (circular reasoning, you know God talks to you because God told you he talks to you), and what ever God is he can't be a logical impossibility.

    If you can't assess the difference it doesn't matter what God does to you, you still can't assess the difference and thus God has not revealed himself to you, any more than he reveals himself to you by appearing as a tree indistinguishable from another tree.

    This is irrelevant to if God exists (we are assuming he does) and irrelevant to if he is all powerful (we are assuming he is). He can't be illogical.

    He gave you the ability to assess knowledge, you do that every day. This is part of our free will. He can't reveal himself by assessing for you, as you cannot know something you have not assessed yourself because that is not knowledge.

    You can make you do things, but without assessment of this you are not aware of it and thus have no knowledge of it.

    So no one is arguing that God cannot interact with you, but for you to know he has you must assess this yourself (otherwise you don't know), God cannot assess if for you.

    The key point that I think you are missing is that we are not simply talking about interaction, we are talking about knowledge


  • Options
    #189
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The issue is whether God can show me. And our atheist friend in the OP sees that this is as easy for God as showing him by empirical means was. What's to prevent God acting so?

    Ok AS, I think I know what you are saying. How's this sound? (could it be this simple). You are saying that if god existed {i'll presume he does for the purpose of the thread}, would he be able to chose to only reveal himself only through non-empirical means?

    I'll answer. Yes, god if he exists can do pretty much anything, his call.


    I'll also just run through the situation of the OP. Tell me if I am going wrong anywhere. God comes to Earth, makes a mount everest God statue and hands out unified field theories and cures for cancer left right and centre, he get's the original Guns 'n' Roses line up back together and does a sh1tload of other emperically verifiable miraculous stuff.

    I say "OK I guess God exists, hope he didn't take all that blasphemy and eating BBQ chicken on good Friday to heart".

    Well now I will think "hmmm maybe the people that said God was chatting away to them were telling the truth".

    So I say to God "Whoa God! The old woman that lived at the top of my road used to tell people that you appeared to her as an apparition. Was that really you or was she just mental?"

    God says "Yeah that was me man"

    Well now I believe that the old woman was telling the truth. But, and this is an important bit so read carefully, I still have absolutely no way whatsoever of knowing if anybody else in the entire world were right when they said they had a personal revelation, or if they were mental cases or if they were just mistaken for some other reason. That is why personal revelation is not an equal proof of god to empirical evidence

    Even if God came to Earth and empirically proved his existance beyond any doubt, and I then believed in God. Non-empirical evidence of his existance, personal revelation, would still not be of equal value to solid empirical evidence, unless the now empirically proved God confirmed the particular case of personal revelation personally, because while God may have been revealing himself to some people by touching their lives in some way, or flat out appearing to them and telling them he was God, others could have been, (i)imagining it, (ii)having a psychotic episode, (iii)lying, (iv)wanting it to happen so bad that they deluded themselves into believing it.


  • Options
    #190
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    strobe wrote: »
    Non-empirical evidence of his existance, personal revelation, would still not be of equal value to solid empirical evidence, unless the now empirically proved God confirmed the particular case of personal revelation personally, because while God may have been revealing himself to some people by touching their lives in some way, or flat out appearing to them and telling them he was God, others could have been, (i)imagining it, (ii)having a psychotic episode, (iii)lying, (iv)wanting it to happen so bad that they deluded themselves into believing it.
    You're absolutely right except you didn't go far enough. while God may have been revealing himself to some people by touching their lives in some way, or flat out appearing to them and telling them he was God, others MUST have been, (i)imagining it, (ii)having a psychotic episode, (iii)lying, (iv)wanting it to happen so bad that they deluded themselves into believing it, because there are contradictory revelations that cannot all be true


  • Options
    #191
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The goals aren't different, the goal (singular) is knowledge.

    If God wanted personal revelation the way humans develop accurate knowledge he would have made it the way humans develop accurate knowledge

    I don't have much time today so won't deal with all your post


    1) The OP states a hypothetical involving God empirically demonstrating himself. For the purposes of arriving at the conclusions drawn, there is no need for this hypothetical to take place. I am not arguing that God ever will demonstrate himself empirically so that people are sure to believe so there is no need to rationalise this way better than that way

    2) You're still projecting your rationalisations onto God - whereas God could have very good reasons for utilising direct revelation (which isn't a method of knowledge development but is one of knowledge installation). Given that there is no way to demonstrate that God is required to follow path a) instead of b) (or a) and b) this activity of yours constitutes evasion.


    Saying God would still use personal revelation to impart knowledge about his existence when personal revelation is so flawed (by his design) is like saying I would invent a computer and then try and work out the US census statistics on an abacus. It is totally illogical.

    What I'd ask you to do is focus on is this oft-repeated conflation of yours. I've made the point below by way of drawing distinctions. If responding, ou are required to approach things from the point of view of the atheist in our OP - not the atheist you currently are.

    1) Personal revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of an action of God.

    2) Empirical revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of the action of God

    3) Personal opinion indicates something arising in man to a large/total degree because of the internal workings of man.


    Looking forward to your response.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I don't have much time today so won't deal with all your post


    1) The OP states a hypothetical involving God empirically demonstrating himself. For the purposes of arriving at the conclusions drawn, there is no need for this hypothetical to take place. I am not arguing that God ever will demonstrate himself empirically so that people are sure to believe so there is no need to rationalise this way better than that way

    2) You're still projecting your rationalisations onto God - whereas God could have very good reasons for utilising direct revelation (which isn't a method of knowledge development but is one of knowledge installation).

    No, you are projecting your human view point on to God (something theist do all the time)

    The view point that God would do something one way and thee for some reason to do something a different way, just like humans do.

    Logically, because God is omnipotent, there is no reason he would ever use personal revelation if he himself declared that personal opinion (which cannot be divorced from personal revelation) is flawed.

    He would never need to. Saying there might be a reason is irrelevant because no reason constrains God.

    You are thinking like a human, not a god.

    You are thinking as a human who some times has to do something one way for one reason and another way for another reason because you are limited in your power. Using my example above you might have to use an abacus because you don't have a computer.

    God isn't limited in the slightest. You keep assuming there must be a reason why he would use personal revelation instead of empirical revelation. But logically there can be one because God has already made empirical revelation better than personal revelation.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Given that there is no way to demonstrate that God is required to follow path a) instead of b) (or a) and b) this activity of yours constitutes evasion.

    Required has nothing to do with it.

    You are suggesting that God would choose to do something in a less that perfect fashion. That is illogical, God by definition would not do that.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    1) Personal revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of an action of God.

    2) Empirical revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of the action of God

    3) Personal opinion indicates something arising in man to a large/total degree because of the internal workings of man.

    All are something arising in man because of the internal workings of man, ie mans intelligence and assessment of data

    All God is doing is providing the data. You still have to assess it, otherwise it is not knowledge and it is pointless to say you know God exists.

    If God simply made you believe in him that would not be the same as knowing he exists because you have not assessed any data and come to a point of knowledge. You believe without knowing why, which is not knowledge.

    The point is that you cannot tell the difference between the data from personal revelation and personal opinion.


  • Options
    #193
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    1) The OP states a hypothetical involving God empirically demonstrating himself. For the purposes of arriving at the conclusions drawn, there is no need for this hypothetical to take place. I am not arguing that God ever will demonstrate himself empirically so that people are sure to believe so there is no need to rationalise this way better than that way

    But if the hypothetical is fundamentally flawed, then it is useless for making observations about reality. We could take you hypothetical and replace "God" with "Mark Hamill" but it wouldn't make it any more valid.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    2) You're still projecting your rationalisations onto God - whereas God could have very good reasons for utilising direct revelation (which isn't a method of knowledge development but is one of knowledge installation). Given that there is no way to demonstrate that God is required to follow path a) instead of b) (or a) and b) this activity of yours constitutes evasion.

    God is required to follow whichever path that is logically consistent with being a logically consistent god. Besides that, you are still left with the problem with distinguishing personal revelation form personal opinion, which you cant do because they are empirically the same.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    What I'd ask you to do is focus on is this oft-repeated conflation of yours. I've made the point below by way of drawing distinctions. If responding, ou are required to approach things from the point of view of the atheist in our OP - not the atheist you currently are.

    1) Personal revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of an action of God.

    2) Empirical revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of the action of God

    3) Personal opinion indicates something arising in man to a large/total degree because of the internal workings of man.

    You are still arguing a strawman. You are still trying to get us to argue from the point of view of an atheist who already agrees with you, which is just plain ridiculous. It has already been explained that your premises are flawed because, as you have numbered them above, 1) and 3) are indistinguishable from each other, and, as observed in all reality and all human progress, only 2) (where 2 is empirical reasoning, the source of which is irrelevent) is reliable. Where these come from, man/god/alien, is irrelevent, personal revelation is inherently flawed because it lacks emprical evidence, this is demonstrated by mutually contradictory personal revelations reported by people from all the religions of the world.

    A couple of things you havent answered yet:
    1)How do you distinguish between personal revelation and personal opinon?
    2)The logical implication that if what you are saying is true, then we have a situation where god is directly controlling what people believe, and then punishing/rewarding people for what they believe as a result of him making them believe it in the first palce. You have a hypothetical situation which contradicts the fundamental nature of the god you are trying to defend.


Advertisement