A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)

Hello,

My name is Jean Chauvin and I am new on here. I saw this place when Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort gave some horrible arguments against two representatives on here.

I am a hardcore Christian trained in logic, philosophy and theology. I enjoy "sparing" if it is respectful and I do not wish to convert anybody to the truth since this is logically impossible.

Since I do not believe atheism (or agnosticism, free thinkingers, etc), then the burden or proof is on you to show me that it is. Since you cannot logically do this, you must find ways to switch the burden back to me so that you are not forced into absurdity.

So, you are stuck with picking on Christians not trained in logic and philosophy. This is sad and this is the state we are in right now. The Christian Church has dumbed down the Body of Christ so badly, they are using atheistic arguments to argue for Christian thinking. It's very bad.

I posted my arguments for God via the thread why do you believe your religion is true and not another (something like that). The question was poorly written since the term religion  cannot be defined anymore.

Anyway, I hope I am welcomed. I enjoy talking to all kinds of pagans and heretics. They can range from Mormons to Satanists such as the Osmonds and Michael W. Ford.

Thanks for having me.

Respectfully,

 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Additionally, Jean

 

we don't just have inputs we have inputs and a brain that can learn through empirical experience and can reason about its experiences.

Also mate, you are the most guilty of adhom and sliding off into assertion of every person in the thread.

Just repeating your mantra does not make you right. And listing logical fallacies does not mean you understand them.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But complexity is described empirically

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

Complexity is non-empirical. So you don't know what you are talking about, unless you step out of empiricism, thus refuting empiricism itself.

 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

in the universe. How do you account for this? As our empirical testing mounts up so does our understanding of complexity.

You are simply saying you can't test how you 'know' what empirical knowledge happens to be, that pre-existence of an ability to 'know' before the application of empiricism proves god. 

If this is true, why don't children 'know' how to reason at birth? Why do they have to learn to 'know' at home, at school at uni?

This ability to 'know', to relate sense data to objects in the world, is central to developed human self awareness - it's not some mysterious god-thing.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Jean

Atheistextremist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ANSWERS,

Hi CJ,

So, being an old lady means you are getting closer to the grave. This would make me grouchy also as the days get hotter. Until eventually the heat will be eternal torment.

 

Do you really mean this or are you just on holiday from your job as an usher at Landover Baptist Church?

 

 

cj wrote:

No absolutes in the real world.  Deal with it.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Are you absolutely sure about that??? Funny.

 

 

Some one as clever as you are Jean, knows perfectly well that this endless excluded-middle logic you keep serving up is fallacious. You're imprisoned in the subjective meaning of words coloured and defined by your brain's genetic design and your life experiences, just as all of us are painted into corners by fixed and limited understandings of concepts and the ambiguities of words. As soon as any of us starts typing we are walking a private path. 

Empiricism is the only thing that allows us to say fixed things about matter in this soup of confusion and all your vehemence will not alter it. I grant you rationalism is an important component of the assessment of empirical evidence but while these two are interdependent, I think that objects and their measurability by human sense data must have come first or brains and a capacity for knowledge would not have evolved (or been created) to sense and reason about them. 

Jean, all humans exist in a restricted tunnel of awareness, as if driving a car at night through unknown country unable to see the true shape of the land. Every corner is disconnected from the explanation of visible topography. You see a little of what is in front of you and get glimpses of woods and villages as you pass; a headlight flash on a wall, a whiff of damp, turned fields; and this allows you to speculate on what else is out there as you roar along, massaged by the buffet of your open windows.

But your momentary inputs are overwhelmed by new inputs in the next instant then again around the next corner and the next and reality is in multiple dimensions and every particle vibrating in every molecule and every molecule vibrating against the next in every object and life form in this and quantum dimensions and all existing together in a vast connected whole and your human senses operating in the first person, your cortex and liaison limbic system speaking with a single voice - one narrator and one mind's eye to know all.

The complexity is too great. The only way to manage knowledge is to test things one at a time and write down the results in huge books, then test again and again and store the data so it's there when we need it. Some devote their entire lifetimes to gleaning tiny pieces of knowledge about the role of sugar molecules in the biochemistry of living cells, others spend decades crawling around Northern Africa sifting the dust through a flour sieve looking for bone.

You will not understand this Jean, but there's a profound integrity to the human quest for the purest possible knowledge in the face of universal complexity, a purity that towers over the cognitive generalisation of religion.

It's just as CJ says - there are no absolutes in the real world. All we can do is try.

 

 

I liked that a lot, well said. 

 

very respectfully

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


Tassman
atheist
Tassman's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-06-28
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Tassman,

Logic has everything to do with it. The interpretation of the evidence in the realm of connecting the universals and the particulars, thus making a "University" and Unity of the Diversity, thus giving one meaning is at the core of knowing. Though I have given my argument on numerous occasions and have demonstrated the evidence of my argument. It's just not empirical evidence.

Philosophy (which is basically just some guy’s speculation) does not have equal status with empirical evidence. To base a world-view on logic and philosophy alone is not sufficient. You cannot argue for something’s existence merely through word-play and sexed-up arguments. First you need evidence and then you argue on the basis of the evidence. The problem for theists is that there is no evidence to support a creator god, just arguments, and that's not good enough.

Quote:
The Burden is dependent on the thesis of the argument. And the B/P can change throughout the argument. Your Atheist Handbook on argument is wrong. 

Not so! The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists – in this case you, with your claims of god’s existence. Atheists do not claim that any form of supernatural entity exists and thus have no burden of proof to sustain.

Quote:
Logic and philosophy gives one the tools of how to handle the evidence. If you simply have evidence, so what. You need to connect it to the knowing so that you can understand it. This is done via logic and philosophy. 

Indeed! But first one must have the evidence and this is what you lack. Certainly, if one accepts your premise of god’s existence then one will be led by logical deduction to your conclusions - but your conclusions will be completely wrong even though your logic is completely right, because there is no verified evidence to support your premise.

Quote:
You don't like logic, and I can see that in how you are relaying your thoughts. You also respond emotionally. Go back and look at my argument, and pick it apart specifically. Don't react because you are having a bad hair day or I hit your funny bone. Argue then. But you need to know some logic and philosophy to do this.  But you don't like logic and philosophy. You seem stuck. I'm not sure how to help you. You have a flat tire on I/5 and you hate tires and think tires have nothing to do with the car going down the road. It's not the tires, it's the engine. I'm telling you. No amount of tires will get you anywhere. If you keep thinking this, when you get an intellectual flat, your belief system will hit a brick wall. And you will have to intellectually walk all your life to nowhere.

What do you mean: I “don’t like logic?” That is not a logical deduction on your part – ahem! It’s a straw-man. Logic is a very useful tool, especially in mathematics. And it can be used to deduce true consequences from true premises. The trick is ensuring that the premises are true and this is where you come unstuck. Your premise of a deity’s existence (unlike the engine of the car in your invalid analogy) is unsupported by any verified evidence.

Quote:
So language is meaningless? You as an atheist essential and non-essential attributes. Can I be an atheist and believe the earth was created about 6000 years ago? Can I be an atheist and believe in Santa Clause? Can I be an atheist and say atheism is a religion? (Humanism).

Setting up straw-men seems to be what you do best. Language is an essential tool of communication and I have never said otherwise.

Quote:
I'm a troll. There's the flat tire I was talking about. Enjoy walking.

A flat tire will not get you very far, admittedly, but in your badly flawed analogy the engine of a car equated to god as the propelling force. Now we can provide verified evidence of a car but we cannot provide any of a deity – and even the best tires in the world will not get you far if the car has no engine. And your car has no engine. Enjoy walking.

____________________________________________________________

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." – Christopher Hitchens


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
ANSWERS

Hey Extremeist,

Regarding #101, you have to define learning. Learning is the when one receives knowledge. Since knowledge is not possible via empiricism, then learning is not possible via empiricism. Empiricism is nothing.

Regard ad homs. There are two different types:

1) Argumentum Ad Hominem Abusive (Invalid - a logical fallacy based on error).

2) Argumentum Ad Hominem (Valid - Logically viable via truth).

I Used # 2.

Regarding Post 102

Empirical testing? What do you mean? Again, define your terms. And since it is non-knowledge, it is complex of what?

Quote:
You are simply saying you can't test how you 'know' what empirical knowledge happens to be, that pre-existence of an ability to 'know' before the application of empiricism proves god.

I'm not just saying you can't test how you know. You cannot know via experience. Experience is via the senses. And for one to say experience denotes knowledge assumes some infallibility and inerrancy of the senses and experiences of the individual itself. Which begs the question since ALL experiences are particular and it becomes circular since it is the person going back to himself via his experiences, and they justifies it via his senses, and so fourth. It's invalid.

Children learn at birth via a-priori means and NOT aposteriori means. Though the learning is not knowledge but probably. The knowledge is only within the realm of Scripture alone.

God did give us senses, so there is a use for them. Just not in the area of knowing. The Bible is against empiricism and the Bible says the only way to know is via God's revelation.

________________

Hi Tess,

Atheistic philosophy is indeed just someone's speculation which is non-philosophy. Philosophy attempts to deal with Knowledge and the method of knowledge. It deals with the objective or the real, and the subjective is by definition, non-philosophy.

I absolutely 100% agree with you that to base a worldview on logic and philosophy alone is not sufficient. That is the epistemology of Rationalism (Capital R) of Rene Descartes. I am not a Capital R Rationalists.

The Burden is the negation of the thesis according to Black's Dictionary of Law. A required text in almost all Law Schools across the country. So write the author and all the schools and tell them that they are all wrong. lol.

I lack your KIND of evidence, since I am not an empiricist. I provide DEDUCTIVE evidence via my argument of consistency in relation to the correspondence of the every day world. So it is still evidence, but not empirical evidence.

Again, the verified evidence is the world around you. If God says He made fish, and in the world there are fish, that is the evidence that DEMONSTRATES the argument.

You need to go back and reread my arguments. And them address where I discuss evidence. Since you missed that part clearly.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey, is a rational christian

Hey, is a rational christian of intelligence ever going to actually show up on this thread, or is this just another example of false advertising?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Hey, is a

Desdenova wrote:

Hey, is a rational christian of intelligence ever going to actually show up on this thread, or is this just another example of false advertising?

Well at least it said (rare) although it should read (impossible)


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well at

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well at least it said (rare) although it should read (impossible)

 

I don't think it's impossible, it would just require near absolute ignorance of all philosophy and science for last... let's say, ever.

I bet there are some rational Christians of intelligence, just not of education, in some isolated villages in second and third world countries.  There aren't likely any on the internet, though.  Being on the internet implies some exposure to these ideas, and so it becomes an either or proposition- either rational or intelligent, possibly neither, but certainly not both to any great measure.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree with Jean.

 

The topic of this thread is true.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey CJ,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey CJ,

I know you don't believe me, but I really love you guys. I'm having a blast here. To bad the rational response squad didn't debate a Christian like me.

After refuting empiricism, I see you guys (not just CJ) are becoming desperate. Um,um, um, we, um we wouldn't have computers and electricity, and batteries. We  wouldn't have technology.

Lol, you are not crossing from knowledge to technology. You don't know that a computer will turn on every time. You assume many things. Not to mention, that since empiricism is fragmented, and CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING, then logically the placement and unity of parts used in the creation of technology could not have been from empiricism, since knowing is impossible via fragmentation.

So, you have to step outside of empiricism, to make anything, since this requires one to know of things. I argue that nothing can be known via empiricism, thus atheism like Spencer 1 says has no means of knowing.

So, try again.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You have not remotely refuted empiricism, and far from making us desperate, you are becoming a joke, next step is a verbal chew-toy.

Your version of knowledge seems to be something like that dumb-ass definition philosophers used 0 "justifiable true belief" - which begs the question of what can we be confident is "true".

I demonstrated that the practical version of knowledge, as provisional but adequately close to matching reality to have allowed the development of modern technological civilization, vastly reduced death rates from many once common diseases and other health problems, and so on, is so f**kingly obviously effective that your metaphysical/philosophical nit-picking about absolutes and certainty and proof being required to claim 'knowledge' are just pathetically medieval.

You too, of necessity, assume most of those same things. We don't NEED to KNOW whether our computer will turn on every time , the possibility is fully and comfortably managed within the probabilistic framework that encompasses induction and empiricism. It is in the back of the manual - 'trouble-shooting'. As long as it turns on, say 999 times out of a 1000, we are fine.

You, on the other hand, only have your arbitrary, subjective choice of one particular proposed God entity out of thousands, and so by your own criterion, are the one who knows NOTHING, even provisionally. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpencer1

Hi BobSpencer1

Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.

The knowledge comment is an ad hominem abusive. Move forward.

Technology is not knowledge, for via empiricism, one has no idea what they have done. That is what I am saying. So technology was in reality NOT built by empiricism because EVERYTHING is fragmented. So there would be no possible RELATIONSHIP of thought between anything.

Answer me this. How can fragmentation of everything, relate to anything, to know something?

Those of Medieval time did not believe this way (the rare Christians did though that aren't mentioned - Jude 3.). They were of empiricism themselves or a sort of Socialist type Dictatorship of hermeneutics.  Another ad hominem abusive.

I do not assume most of these things. You evidently did not read my argument. I assume 2 things via axiomatically via the first principle which is acceptable in logic and everybody assumes their first principle in ALL arguments.

Probability is NOT knowledge by definition. Knowledge is a variable with absolute error. Probability ALWAYS has a probable means of false AND true, which in logic means that the subject does not have absolute dibs on either the true of the false. Thus probability by definition cannot know since the negation and the affirmative of the know contradict the possible outcome making it a GUESS. A guess is not a know.

And yes, just because you turn on your TV one, twice or a 150 times, does not mean it will turn on 151. Thus you do NOT know. You guess. And guessing is not knowing.

Induction is the incest with empiricism since they are both stuck together. They can't EVER get off the ground into universals. They are fallen and can't ever get up, thus by definition, can't every know.

This is the problem Thomas Aquinas had with the Theistic Proofs for the Existence of God, and you are making the same logical fallacy as Aquinas made over 700 years ago.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I love the way fundies think

I love the way fundies think that the poor cousin of science, philosophy, can disprove science. It is especially entertaining when their pre-scripted philosophical argument is blown out of the water, they just chug on along as though they still have a leg to stand on. Gawd, this is what keeps me coming back.  I really do enjoy being reminded of just how narrow minded and brainwashed they are. Just like the 'thermodynamics disproves evolution' fundies. It is like a tragic comedy.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Tassman
atheist
Tassman's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-06-28
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

It’s Tassman or Tass – not Tess. 

Quote:
Atheistic philosophy is indeed just someone's speculation which is non-philosophy. Philosophy attempts to deal with Knowledge and the method of knowledge. It deals with the objective or the real, and the subjective is by definition, non-philosophy.

Philosophy is philosophy, atheistic or otherwise. Philosophy (which is just some guys best guess put on paper) cannot have equal status with empirical evidence and must always give way before it. After all, empirical knowledge is the verification of what philosophy is theoretically attempting to deduct or induct in the first place. The scientific method is designed to exclude confirmation bias to arrive at conclusions based on observed evidence, philosophy works in the exact opposite way.

Quote:
I absolutely 100% agree with you that to base a worldview on logic and philosophy alone is not sufficient. That is the epistemology of Rationalism (Capital R) of Rene Descartes. I am not a Capital R Rationalists.

Glad to hear it because it is crap. Most theists are "Capital R Rationalists though.

Quote:
The Burden is the negation of the thesis according to Black's Dictionary of Law. A required text in almost all Law Schools across the country. So write the author and all the schools and tell them that they are all wrong. lol.

Nicely blurred – typical theist muddy-the-water tactic.

Burden of Proof is the legal obligation on a party to prove the allegation or assertion made by him against another party. In plain English the burden of proof rests with the one making the assertion – in this instance, you.

Quote:
I lack your KIND of evidence, since I am not an empiricist. I provide DEDUCTIVE evidence via my argument of consistency in relation to the correspondence of the every day world. So it is still evidence, but not empirical evidence.

Deducing from WHAT???

Quote:
Again, the verified evidence is the world around you. If God says He made fish, and in the world there are fish, that is the evidence that DEMONSTRATES the argument. 

Totally circular argument! You know there is a god because he said he made fish – there are fish so god must exist, because he said he made them.

“First catch a rabbit”, so begins a famous recipe for rabbit stew. In this instance, first prove god exists before you start claiming what he says.

Quote:
You need to go back and reread my arguments. And them address where I discuss evidence. Since you missed that part clearly.

I don’t think so. Not if the "fish-making god" is an example of your “evidence”?

____________________________________________________________

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." – Christopher Hitchens


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Tassman wrote:“First

Tassman wrote:

“First catch a rabbit”, so begins a famous recipe for rabbit stew. In this instance, first prove god exists before you start claiming what he says.

 

<sarcasm>

pfffffftttttttttttttt............  god/s/dess texts him every day.  How else could he know god/s/dess exists?

</sarcasm>

 

Note: I've taken to explicitly denoting sarcasm, otherwise Jean thinks I'm serious.

 

Sincerely and respectfully,

 

CJ

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Technology is a form of

Technology is a form of knowledge, of the only kind we have access to, ie provisional and qualified by a confidence factor.

Your version of 'knowledge" is ultimately empty, since we can only ever determine the truth-value of any factual statement about the state of reality provisionally. We can be somewhat more confident about deductive conclusions derived ultimately from the Laws of Logic, since we have no practical alternative. But Logic alone cannot lead us to even provisional truth, since it is just as dependent on the 'truth' of its input propositions as any empirical argument, which is also ultimately constructed on logic, but addresses more input data than purely deductive processes, and continually refers its conclusions back to reality for checking, before making the next step. 

That confidence factor, a probability, is data, is what allows us to decide in critical situations which alternative paths to start out along. If it suggests the probability of success is too low, then we need to find ways to increase it. Such as having our car's engine overhauled to bring it back into a more reliable condition.

Trying to apply binary (true/false) logic in a situation where the data are continuous variables is a error. That is why the extensions of logic via probabilities and tools like Bayes Theorem were developed.

You are effectively trying to calculate the orbit of the Earth with integer arithmetic.

Your demonstrated unfamiliarity with how these work just means that your education/understanding is incomplete, and until you study these things you are not qualified to comment.

The logic and philosophy of the Greeks and Aquinas are simply inadequate to address reality.

Complexity Theory, studies of Chaos, Non-linear feed-back systems, are developments of the last century or so, so if you have only been educated in philosophy, which is now way behind science in the 'knowledge'.

I must have missed your demonstration of the existence of God, can you point me to it, or at least give us a brief summary?

EDIT: I found a reference to some of your alleged proofs in another thread, so hold on that last question until I consider them.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello there. Sorry for

Hello there. Sorry for jumping in late at the conversation, just had to point out something:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I flow from my first principle to my arguments.

God IS via an Infinite Reference Point. And via the Imago Dei, we know this as a given or Axiom. God's Word is True also an axiom. The Titus 1:2 example is what you would expect to find in the implications of the axioms. Since God does not lie in Titus 1:2, this is consistent with the implications of the axioms we encounter in nature.

God says He made trees, and fish, and we encounter trees and fish. Thus this DEMONSTRATES the argument (not support the argument). This is from Kant's transcendental argument of deduction. What must be, in order for what is, to be what it is.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I lack your KIND of evidence, since I am not an empiricist. I provide DEDUCTIVE evidence via my argument of consistency in relation to the correspondence of the every day world. So it is still evidence, but not empirical evidence.

So, god says there's trees and fish, and we surely find trees and fish. So far so good, but then we have:

Job 38:9 - Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

I see no unicorns, unless he mean Narwhals, and those aren't horns, those are tusks, so no unicorn.

Lev. 11:6 - And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Hares don't chew cud

Lev. 14:33-57

Is the cure of leprosy sprinkling bird's blood with a magic wand? According to medical science, that would be no.

And the list continues: flat earth, geocentric universe, bats being birds, Pi equals 3, and so forth.

If the basis of your evidence and the demonstration of your argument both stand on the correspondence of god's word (known to us by means of the bible) with the real world, then as shown in the bible passages I present, I'm sorry to say that you have neither argument or evidence. 

Cheers.

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey Jean, where is this

Hey Jean, where is this Rational Intelligent Christian you promised us?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Gurgle

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hey Jean, where is this Rational Intelligent Christian you promised us?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Just because you say I

Quote:
Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.

You sound exactly like that delusional computer nerd in Golden Eye, " I AM INVINCIBLE".

You have defeated empiricism like I have gotten a blow job from Anjolina Jolie.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Completely off topic folks,

Completely off topic folks, I finally got my Firefox working again and now I can post here again. Ironically after all my virus problems and brouser problems, it is actually working faster now.

Jean must have prayed to God for me. Thanks Jean. Because of your fictional friend I can now continue to spread my recipes for barbecue kitten.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Just

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.

You sound exactly like that delusional computer nerd in Golden Eye, " I AM INVINCIBLE".

You have defeated empiricism like I have gotten a blow job from Anjolina Jolie.

This is also a guy who thinks referring to a few verses from the Bible, which simply make a few claims about what God did, proves God... WTF?

Jean, you are a just a sad joke to us now, we are so disappointed, we thought you might actually have something substantial for us to wrestle with. 

Instead we just have a tattered chew-toy, throwing arrogant ad-homs at us. Like a Chihuahua dog fiercely attacking our ankles.

Or perhaps a grasshopper...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Instead we

BobSpence1 wrote:

Instead we just have a tattered chew-toy, throwing arrogant ad-homs at us. Like a Chihuahua dog fiercely attacking our ankles.

Or perhaps a grasshopper...

 

Come on now, Bob, there's no reason to be mean here.  This kind of comparison is insulting to Chihuahuas, grasshoppers, and chew-toys; what did they ever do to you?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

We can be somewhat more confident about deductive conclusions derived ultimately from the Laws of Logic, since we have no practical alternative. But Logic alone cannot lead us to even provisional truth, since it is just as dependent on the 'truth' of its input propositions as any empirical argument

 

I would say that we can be completely confident in properly executed deductive logic, because there is *no* alternative (dialetheism being incoherent absurdity)- by simple process of elimination, logic is the prime and only source of of certain knowledge.

A logical argument doesn't have to depend on premises, but usually does given unknown steps and factors between the prime assumptions of logic (non-contradiction) and the arguments being made.  Wherein logic speaks to the nature of an overall objective reality, however, we have no need of those details.  We can deduce, for example, MWI and its equivalents without the need of empirical premises.

 

1. Logic -> MWI (no problem)

2. ??? UFT ???

3. Empirical observation (problem- uncertainty) -> laws of physics -> advanced computer simulation (almost there) -> Chemistry -> Biology -> etc.

 

The biggest problem is step two, and the lack of derivation for all of the laws of physics thus the requirement of relying on some empirical observation, which is in some small measure 'uncertain'.  This is enough to disprove any creator god, of course, but it doesn't get us all of the way from top to bottom.

I don't like granting these theists who advance a "god of the gaps" a larger gap than there really is- there's simply no reason to grant them the possibility of a creator.

 

The ideal, of course, would be:  Logic -> MWI -> UFT -> laws of physics -> etc.

 

That would close all of the perceived gaps for any sort of deity (despite deities being ontologically impossible anyway) by completing science and obliterating any vestiges of an imagined "possible" magic.

 

 

I believe I can go so far as:

 

Logic -> MWI -> uncertainty principle and quantum exclusion (partially) -> gravity -> electroweak force (maybe) -> ???Strong force???

 


 

I think I can get to gravity pretty easily and maybe the electroweak force, but I run into a few hiccups along the way with regards to the strong force (I don't have a lead on how it derives yet), and a few other loose ends.

 

By no means do those loose ends provide wiggle room for a deity, though, particularly a creator deity.  Assuming the apparent possibility is leeway we just shouldn't be giving to theists.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake, you may be interested

Blake, you may be interested in my discussion with our friend Louise here, where I did very much try to bring her up to speed on my current take on the MWI.

I would be interested in your comments. I am still trying to formulate another attempt at explaining it, in between other commitments.

Indeed, I am still working my way thru it in my own head.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Just

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.

Um, no you didn't refute it..you just sorta kinda showed it was incompatible with your assumptions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Answer me this. How can fragmentation of everything, relate to anything, to know something?

Dude...you keep insisting on fragmentation and all your attempts to define it have turned up void and when you substantiate this have resulted in hasty generalizations... If this is the only sort of substantiation you can provide, then all I can say is your "epstemology" if one can call it that, is bankrupt.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Probability is NOT knowledge by definition. Knowledge is a variable with absolute error. Probability ALWAYS has a probable means of false AND true, which in logic means that the subject does not have absolute dibs on either the true of the false. Thus probability by definition cannot know since the negation and the affirmative of the know contradict the possible outcome making it a GUESS. A guess is not a know.

You need to take a statistics class or pick up a book on it or something. You obviously have no understanding of the subject.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And yes, just because you turn on your TV one, twice or a 150 times, does not mean it will turn on 151. Thus you do NOT know. You guess. And guessing is not knowing.

But one does have reason to believe it will turn on again...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Induction is the incest with empiricism since they are both stuck together. They can't EVER get off the ground into universals. They are fallen and can't ever get up, thus by definition, can't every know.

The only one obsessed with universals around here seems to be you... Atheists, generally speaking concede that induction does not produce absolute certainty, but pretty darn good certainty (how about in the neighborhood of 99.9999%) on some things.... Such as acceleration due to gravity, or the speed of light in a vacuum, or the rate of radio active decay of potassium, etc...


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I still

BobSpence1 wrote:

I still think applying any concept of time as we think of it to any account of the space-time manifold is both unnecessary and misleading.

I think this is fair.  I usually use the book/story analogy, but try to make clear that an 'outside' observation is really impossible because observation can't occur in that context.

It is not eternal so much as 'timeless'; as much as is pi, or e, or 1- as notions along the number line.  These things bear only logical existence relative to each other, but not a temporal one, because time doesn't exist for these indelible concepts. 

Time is an emergent property of perception much as is the tendency to count along the number line from zero to infinity, assuming the larger numbers come later, and that somehow when you get to them the others have passed away.  Logical sequence just doesn't imply that.

It is probably more important to explain the illusory nature of time than to confuse people by bringing in an impossible notion of a meta-time.  From an objective perspective, time, observation, information, and existence as we know it are all impossible- it's something Eloise will never want to accept because it obliterates her deity on the most fundamental level.

There is no theism, no deism, and certainly no pantheism allowable by logic- a logic which derives everything we see from the input of our subjectivity and allows nothing- not a shred of objective information- outside of that.

 

 

The most psychologically positive thing that comes out of it is the logical inherence of being; in that sense, if it's a logically possible 'world', it's a logically necessary one to make up the whole (which would present with objective information without that symmetry), and though a part of a whole, we are an inherent part of the ultimate emergent property.  That we exist proves that we are logically possible in our context, and makes us logically inherent to any reality- every moment of us, and every possible moment of every possible us.  From the first kiss to that awkward time Aunty Sue didn't knock- these are all indelible parts of this cosmic symmetry, this 'number line' of sorts that is the multiverse, and which ultimately contains no information at all.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:BobSpence1

Blake wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I still think applying any concept of time as we think of it to any account of the space-time manifold is both unnecessary and misleading.

I think this is fair.  I usually use the book/story analogy, but try to make clear that an 'outside' observation is really impossible because observation can't occur in that context.

It is not eternal so much as 'timeless'; as much as is pi, or e, or 1- as notions along the number line.  These things bear only logical existence relative to each other, but not a temporal one, because time doesn't exist for these indelible concepts. 

Time is an emergent property of perception much as is the tendency to count along the number line from zero to infinity, assuming the larger numbers come later, and that somehow when you get to them the others have passed away.  Logical sequence just doesn't imply that.

It is probably more important to explain the illusory nature of time than to confuse people by bringing in an impossible notion of a meta-time.  From an objective perspective, time, observation, information, and existence as we know it are all impossible- it's something Eloise will never want to accept because it obliterates her deity on the most fundamental level.

There is no theism, no deism, and certainly no pantheism allowable by logic- a logic which derives everything we see from the input of our subjectivity and allows nothing- not a shred of objective information- outside of that.

 

 

The most psychologically positive thing that comes out of it is the logical inherence of being; in that sense, if it's a logically possible 'world', it's a logically necessary one to make up the whole (which would present with objective information without that symmetry), and though a part of a whole, we are an inherent part of the ultimate emergent property.  That we exist proves that we are logically possible in our context, and makes us logically inherent to any reality- every moment of us, and every possible moment of every possible us.  From the first kiss to that awkward time Aunty Sue didn't knock- these are all indelible parts of this cosmic symmetry, this 'number line' of sorts that is the multiverse, and which ultimately contains no information at all.

"If real is what you can feel, smell, taste, and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Morpheus, Matrix

 

There are several similar scenarios: Matrix, Men in Black, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, etc.

I do not have a BIG problem with most of them.  The problem is that none of such scenarios have any rational to KNOW about the creator/manipulator/etc.  Picking up a random story (Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc.) as the only true one makes logical sense that is infinitely close to ZERO.

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hi DESD,

I actually had responses and lost it since I didn't save anything. Then I got sick. So, we'll try again since yet again, there is confusion regarding my argument.

I love science. I'm arguing that you cannot do science by definition, but you REDEFINE knowledge so you look like you know what you're doing. You're like an atheist leading a Bible study, no beginning and no end.

Only via Christianity is science even possible.

My argument has yet to be thrown out of the water. If one does not ever understand the argument, how can they destroy it? lol. Usually, it works in steps. As a Christian via science I would know this. Via an Atheist via fake science, I can see your confusion.

The rest was ad hominem abusive and you went down the toilet. What happened, brain dead?

______________

Hi Tess,

You do not know what philosophy is. Atheistic philosophy is just another guys guess, you're right, that's why they can't do science. But that is not Biblical philosophy.

I do not have a circular argument because my first principle is never used via my premises, but rather it works downward via deduction.

It is my evidence that ABC corresponds to reality. You don't like it because it works, and blows your egocentric selfishness out of there.

_____________

BobSpencer1

Technology is not knowledge. And technology when it is built is built OUTSIDE of empiricism, since empiricism CANNOT teach you anything. So if you want to use technology as an argument, It would be on my side for the inconsistency your empiricism offers (e.g. Mathematics).

Quote:
our version of 'knowledge" is ultimately empty, since we can only ever determine the truth-value of any factual statement about the state of reality provisionally. We can be somewhat more confident about deductive conclusions derived ultimately from the Laws of Logic, since we have no practical alternative. But Logic alone cannot lead us to even provisional truth, since it is just as dependent on the 'truth' of its input propositions as any empirical argument, which is also ultimately constructed on logic, but addresses more input data than purely deductive processes, and continually refers its conclusions back to reality for checking, before making the next step.

Knowledge is only possible via revealed revelation from the Infinite Reference Point. You have 0% knowledge. I win.

If you want to make the Laws of Logic argument, then you are arguing from a Rationalistic epistemology. (Capital R, Rene Descartes). So which is it bob? Are you a Rationalist or an Empiricist? You can't be both since they are contradictive of one another and to be both would be to refute both at the same time.

I can understand the laws of logic because God is logical, and Jesus Christ is the very logic of God. How do you justify your inconsistency?

Probability is NEVER knowledge since there is always a probable factor of the negation and the affirmative of the claim. SO with that, you can never be sure. And since knowledge is in the realm of the non negation factor but only the affirmative factor, then to have ANY negation would cause it to be non-knowledge by definition. So you logically have no knowledge.

Just because you rename it knowledge, and you dress it up to look like knowledge, and you say it over and over again, does not make it knowledge by definition from a philosophical point of view.

Quote:
Trying to apply binary (true/false) logic in a situation where the data are continuous variables is a error. That is why the extensions of logic via probabilities and tools like Bayes Theorem were developed.

lol, Bayes Theorem would be an ad hominem towards your position since the evidence itself is more of a higher qualify via a priori. Since Empiricism is a posteriori, then your own reference is a counter against you. That's funny. I am arguing purely via an a priori starting point.

Besides that, there you go talking about logic, which is a non-empiricist subject. Justify logic via empiricism, if you can't do that, you are refuting yourself constantly.

Mathematics corresponds to Scripture. I believe via the Bible I can deduce Calculus. If this was not possible, then mathematics would not be knowledge, but rather validity via a system.

Do you study chaos theory via order or via chaos. Then if chaos theory is valid, then wouldn't you study it via chaos itself? If you cannot do this, the subject is invalid.

I will tell you my argument again:

I start with an assumption via 2  axioms. The first axioms if God Is, and the second axiom is the Bible is God's Word.

Then via Kant's transcendental argument, the doctrines are the theorems of the axioms. So the proof does not support the argument, but rather demonstrates the argument via the following phrase:

Quote:
"What must be, in order for what is to be what it is."

With that, the evidence of demonstration would be that which we would expect to find. So If God said there was a flood, we would expect to find evidence of such a thing. If God said He created trees, the trees would be demonstration of the argument.

This is 100% a prori.

That is a very brief statement of the argument.

__________________________

Hi Albedo,

The Unicorn in Job 38:9 should be translated Wild Ox (A specific kind that is now extinct). The KJV writers didn't so they went with the etymology of description of the word which meant "horned beast."

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Remember, my argument has the original autographs as the first principle, this is why I took up Textual Criticism as a child.

lol, as stated before, via the original autographs, my argument still stands. And the KJV only had the textus receptus and Textual Criticism was an infant at the time.

__________

Hi BobSpencer1

The verses are the implications of the axioms. Completely 100% valid. You must not be emotional but demonstrate how it is invalid.

The rest turned into ad hominem abusive again. Very sad.

______________
 

Hi UBuntU,

I simply repeated the apathy of David Hume, the GREAT EMPIRICIST. So the ad hominem is on you my friend. One of your very own. Harvard just made David Hume one of their favorite philosophers.

If Hume was wrong, how was he wrong?

I have defined it well, and NOBODY has given me an argument against this. Do you have one? If Atheism fragmented or not? argue.

Reason and knowledge are NOT the same thing. You should know this. You got lazy on me.

You can't determine certainty since mathematics is NON-EMPIRICAL. If you use an aprori means to support an apostori means you are a poor man with one leg, and you can't find a pot to piss in.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Only via

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Only via Christianity is science even possible.

 

Are you dismissing ALL science before christianity and in non-chrisitan countries?

Translation: are you that stupid?

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Only via

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Only via Christianity is science even possible.


And yet the Pythagorean Theorem was formulated well before Christianity. And yet General Relativity was formulated by a non Christian. And yet Euclid was doing geometry without a Bible. And yet Egyptians were doing chemistry 2000 years before the dead guy on a stick was even born.....

I'm still waiting for that rational Xtian to show up. This comic relief Xtian is getting dull.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Why do ya wanna become an

Why do ya wanna become an aeronautical engineer, Billy? That requires math, an' math was invented by them filthy godless Baby-lonians! No Sir-ee, if you wanna fly, just hammer some boards together, pray real hard, an' jump off a roof with it. God'll hold ya up. God is all the science you need!

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:My

Jean Chauvin wrote:
My argument has yet to be thrown out of the water.

You have yet to throw it out of your head. Reality is far different than your delusion Ned Flaunders.

We are not impressed with your pathetic attempts at mental masturbation.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I simply

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I simply repeated the apathy of David Hume, the GREAT EMPIRICIST. So the ad hominem is on you my friend. One of your very own. Harvard just made David Hume one of their favorite philosophers.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is? I fail to see to which ad hominem you are referring.... If I said, "you're wrong because you're an @$$hole" that would be an ad hominem.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

If Hume was wrong, how was he wrong?

I have defined it well, and NOBODY has given me an argument against this. Do you have one? If Atheism fragmented or not? argue.

First, tell me what you mean by "fragmented", and then I will answer you... you've yet to define that for me. And from what I can tell, you were mistaking disagreement as fragmentation, and as I explained already, atheists don't shun that, but celebrate it because it shows to some extent that atheists are thinking for themselves rather that adhering to doctrine. And when I brought of the issues of Christians who didn't agree with you, you called them heretics. But I noted, that's the no-true-Scotsman fallacy at work...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Reason and knowledge are NOT the same thing. You should know this. You got lazy on me.

No, reason and knowledge aren't the same thing. Knowledge is the overlap of truth and belief.... Truth may be unknown, and beliefs may be false, but where they overlap, they form knowledge. For some one to believe something, however, one must either accept it as something that is self-evident or justified by something else. Empirical truth is discovered by experiencing something in the world, such as acceleration due to gravity etc.

If you want empirical truth, try this experiment: go to your kitchen, turn on the burner and place a pot of water on the burner. Wait for it to come to a boil, then stick your hand in the boiling water. You will learn very quickly by means of empiricism that sticking your hand in hot water will burn you. I've burned myself plenty of times enough to know that I should be careful when handling boiling water....

Now, if you're referring to your TV example, I can't know that the next time I turn on the TV after turning it 150 that it won't turn on, but I can have reason to believe it will. This is based on prior experience (ie empirical evidence) for such belief. But epistemically, you'd have to find a verse or receive some kind of revelation from a god to know that. But that's not what we're talking about either...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You can't determine certainty since mathematics is NON-EMPIRICAL. If you use an aprori means to support an apostori means you are a poor man with one leg, and you can't find a pot to piss in.

Since when is mathematics non-empirical? I wasn't born with the ability to do math and I don't recall ever having learned math any other way. And if that were the case, I do think I would be unemployed because I teach mathematics to students through empirical means...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The knowledge comment is an ad hominem abusive. Move forward.

"Ad hominem" != "abusive." An ad hominem is a fallacy in which the validity of a source is questioned, rather than the merits of the proposition. An ad hominem is saying something along the lines of, "Universities are liberal, and therefore everything produced by universities is worthless."

Calling you a half-educated buffoon with no sense of rationality is not an ad hominem, it is an insult. It would only be an ad hominem if I used your lack of logical discourse as an excuse to not answer your questions.

Quote:

Technology is not knowledge, for via empiricism, one has no idea what they have done. That is what I am saying. So technology was in reality NOT built by empiricism because EVERYTHING is fragmented. So there would be no possible RELATIONSHIP of thought between anything.

I'm not entirely sure exactly how this relates to empiricism, at least in the modern sense of empiricism. It seems you are using an archaic version of empiricism as a strawman.

The assumption of empiricism is that everything fits together logically. This is not necessary for empiricism to work -- after all, empiricism is nothing more than observation. Empiricism asserts that our only evidence of reality is that which we observe, not what we make up. 

But, the modern assumption of empiricism is that everything fits together logically. Reality is composed of interlocking patterns. Why do we make that assumption? Because all our observations show the outline of the underlying patterns. The way this works is illustrated quite well by the observations and synthesis of Copernicus and Galileo and Tycho and Newton. Observations lead to the discovery of underlying patterns, and those patterns are reduced to a mathematical model.

So, no, my good and respectful friend Jean. Empiricism (as implemented by science) is not fragmented, any more than the pixels on your monitor are fragmented. (To explain the analogy: each pixel is independent and unique, and means nothing on its own. But when combined with all the other pixels on your screen, a discernible pattern arises, one which even you have no problems interpreting. The underlying pattern is an expression of a very complex system that is bult on very simple principles.)

You seem to think that empiricism excludes logic. It does not. The scientific method uses empiricism to gather data (which manifests according to the underlying patterns of reality). Scientists then use inductive logic to create various possible models that might explain the emerging pattern. They then use deductive logic as a logical sieve to sort the possible explanations from the impossible.

You use empiricism every day. Do you drive? Then you use empirical knowledge to gather data concerning the actions of other drivers. Does one driver move unpredictably? Then you know to be particularly cautious around that driver. Do you have a girlfriend or significant other? Then you know this other person loves you, or does not love you, by their actions. Some actions are neutral, but others are not. 

You deny empiricism while using it.

Quote:
And yes, just because you turn on your TV one, twice or a 150 times, does not mean it will turn on 151. Thus you do NOT know. You guess. And guessing is not knowing.

Do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes. Do you know that if you are hungry you can eat some bread, and it will sustain you? Yes. Do you know you will see other people if you go outside in a city? Yes.

You use induction all the time. Effectively. You can't even deny it. So you also have knowledge that induction is effective. And knowing the TV will turn on 150 out of 151 times is knowledge. It is statistical in nature, but it is certainly better than no knowledge at all. It's not like you are surprised every time your TV turns on. In fact, you are surprised when it does not. And when it does not turn on, you assume there is a problem. So you check the power cord, and the breaker box, and so on. You can assume when it does not turn on that there is something wrong.

And that's exactly what people do.

You dismiss all this, all while treating this as knowledge.

Quote:

Induction is the incest with empiricism since they are both stuck together. They can't EVER get off the ground into universals. They are fallen and can't ever get up, thus by definition, can't every know.

Fortunately, science does not rely entirely on induction. Induction is used in the intermediate creative step, while building up possible explanations. Deduction is used afterwards, to help discern which hypotheses (built by induction) are not viable. (This is called "testing." It's an important part of science. I wonder if the Bible, also important to science, has a chapter on testing?)

It seems you have a few mistaken ideas about how science works, and the role of empiricism in everyday life (as well as in science). You can deny empiricism works, or you can bemoan the logical certainty of induction, but the truth is, you use them both every day. In fact, you use empiricism and induction far more than you use deduction.

So please, continue to claim you have "disproven" them. It makes for an amusing spectacle.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
All Jean has 'disproven' is

All Jean has 'disproven' is that empiricism/induction lead to any 100% certain 'atomic' facts, which has never been claimed by modern empiricists.

The statement that "A is 'true' with a high probability" is actually a certain fact, just not an 'atomic' one about A, ie stating that A is known to be true.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello 100PercentAtheist,

There was no science via the Greeks since they never came up with an agreed epistemology to reach the universals without an infinite reference point. Mathematics is deductive and logical.

I should know, one can still be scientifical inconsistently via the Imago Dei.

God can use Pagans for His Will. Just look at Billy Graham!!!

______________________

Hi DESD,

IBID

_______________________

Hi Brian47

You cannot define reality unless you think like a Christian. The mere speculation about such things are inconsistent. Since God created all things the reality of all things are found in Him and Him alone.

____________________

Hi UBUNTU,

You asked about fragmentation. In order for knowledge to be, you must have at least one subject connect to the other all the time. While there is diversity in the subjects,  there is a relationship of subjects.

CONSISTENT empiricism does not allow for such relationship thus it does not allow for such knowledge.

A consistent empiricist starts with a blank slate. Nothing. So all things that are received the child has no idea what is knowledge. He is fed all kinds of stuff. Then when he gets older, since logically he cannot remember everything, must try to find a relationship between the subjects.

Thus language (which is non empirical), mathematics (non empirical) Logic (non Empirical),  Love (non empirical) (UNIVERSALS) are non empirical (Fragmentaton (non Empirical). Empiricism is the very pitty of ignorance.

So the question for you is to demonstrate how a consistent empiricists can RELATE to other subjects via having knowledge.  If connotative definitions are non empirical, then the only way for a consistent empiricists to define is to jump up and down and grunt while he points to a tree like a monkey.

I have discussed fragmentation more specifically on other posts. I may come back to it and do a whole post on it.

You do not know if you stick your hand in again that it will burn. AGain, empiricism is 100% experience. You are using 1 experiences for all experiences, and that is NOT empiricism. So you are a very bad empiricist.

Can you taste mathematics. Can you hear mathematics. Mathematics is non empirical since it is DEDUCTIVE and empiricism by definition is INDUCIIVE.

__________________________________

Hi Nigel,

You use the term "modern sense of empiricism." Please define this. Do you speak of logical positivism?

Logic is non empirical since logic is deductive and empiricism is inductive.

Empiricism is fragmented so badly, as you write you refute it. Show me how empiricism consistently applies finds relationship with the subjects. YOu cannot use logic since logic is a universal. If you do, then you are not an empiricist. You are a confused baboon.

The Scientific method originated from Francis Bacon who was deductive. Francis Bacon was an Anglican thus He used Biblical thinking to form this. The Empiricists hi jacked this and claimed it as theirs while all the time refuting themselves via their silly inductions.

Empiricism by definition is: The view of the experience, especially the senses, is the only way to know.

While God made my senses, and I do use them, I do NOT use them for knowing since logically one cannot know via the senses. My senses are not inerrant or infallible. Only God is. Your senses are your god.

An empiricists can't know the future. They can only know via what they experience at that time. You are a very bad empiricist.

Science CANNOT rely on induction FOR KNOWLEDGE. I used induction as a study AT TIME rarely, but for study, not for knowledge.

Science is knowledge.

____

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So, Jean,You believe:God is

So, Jean,

You believe:

God is inerrant and infallible and therefore reliable.

God created your senses.

Your senses are not inerrant and infallible and therefore not reliable.

Why do you think God provided you with such faulty equipment?

Does he want you to know nothing? Is he such a narcissist that he wants you to keep looking at and to him?

Both views are consistent with the Bible.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Nigel,

You use the term "modern sense of empiricism." Please define this. Do you speak of logical positivism?

Yes, I speak of logical positivism.

Quote:

Logic is non empirical since logic is deductive and empiricism is inductive.

Deduction is one kind of logic. They also refer to induction as logic. So your statement is false.

Logic is non-empirical, I will give you that. However, logic without empiricism is simple wankery. Empiricism provides the grist for the logical mill. Without that grist, you have nothing with which to work. It is like a sculptor without clay, or a mixed metaphor without language.

Quote:

Empiricism is fragmented so badly, as you write you refute it. Show me how empiricism consistently applies finds relationship with the subjects. YOu cannot use logic since logic is a universal. If you do, then you are not an empiricist. You are a confused baboon.

How again do I refute empiricism? And how is it fragmented? You have not clarified either of these points. You merely assert they are true. This is one of many places in which you fail.

If empiricism fails, why do you bother turning on the TV? How can you know it will turn on at all? How do you navigate from your home to the grocery store, as you cannot be sure the grocery store will be in the same place? In fact, how can you be sure the road you take on the way to the grocery store will take you to the same place?

If empiricism fails, how do you know anything about the universe? Logic cannot give you rocks, nor gravity, nor trees. Your only knowledge of these things is empirical. And yet they are the very things that constitute reality.

As I pointed out, you use empiricism every single day.

Quote:

The Scientific method originated from Francis Bacon who was deductive. Francis Bacon was an Anglican thus He used Biblical thinking to form this. The Empiricists hi jacked this and claimed it as theirs while all the time refuting themselves via their silly inductions.

Empiricism by definition is: The view of the experience, especially the senses, is the only way to know.

Not quite. This is what I mean by a "modern" definition of empiricism (or not so modern, as it began with Sir Francis Bacon). Logical positivism states the only way to gather data about reality is via the senses (or by using machines that measure aspects of reality, which is essentially the same thing).

If you have another demonstrable way of gathering data about reality, I'd like to know.

I don't care what religion to which Francis Bacon adhered. He most certainly did not use Biblical thinking to formulate his fundamental version of the scientific method. Francis Bacon was himself an empiricist. It was his work that established induction as a vital tool for creating propositions about the nature of reality. There is simply no way to restate the Baconian method without using induction.

While your historical revisionism is noted, it won't help. Bacon was the first modern empiricist. He defined the scientific method using induction as a centerpiece.

So, if I am a confused baboon, I am in esteemed company.

Quote:

While God made my senses, and I do use them, I do NOT use them for knowing since logically one cannot know via the senses. My senses are not inerrant or infallible. Only God is. Your senses are your god.

I don't assume my senses are inerrant or infallible. I do know my senses are my only means of gathering data about the universe. If I had no senses at all, I'd not know about the universe.

Again, your ignorance of science is showing. The practitioners of science have developed many proven tools for validating the data gathered by the senses. This is where the various biases come into play. There are methods for reducing bias into essential non-existence. So science doesn't assume the senses are infallible. In fact, it assumes quite the opposite -- that human senses, and the interpretation of data gathered by the senses, are quite prone to various biases.

I'm not sure where you get the "Your senses are your god" bullshit from. I have no god. That's what makes me an atheist. It's right there in the definition of the word.

Quote:

An empiricists can't know the future. They can only know via what they experience at that time. You are a very bad empiricist.

Science CANNOT rely on induction FOR KNOWLEDGE. I used induction as a study AT TIME rarely, but for study, not for knowledge.

Science is knowledge.

Science is an epistemology, a methodology, and the intellectual results of the application of that methodology. Science DOES rely on induction FOR KNOWLEDGE. You use induction EVERY SINGLE DAY, for knowledge. Otherwise, you would not eat, because you could not know that eating will satiate your hunger. You would not be able to navigate elsewhere, because you would not be able to know where the road will take you. You would not use the English language, because you could not know that the words will mean the same thing today as they did yesterday.

If you'd like me to explain how induction is used FOR KNOWLEDGE yet again, I most certainly will. I will also explain yet again how science uses deduction to test that which is built using induction.

But really, I'd like you to explain how science works. That might make for far more entertaining reading.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You cannot define

Quote:
You cannot define reality unless you think like a Christian

Funny, I am typing on a FUCKING COMPUTER which is real. Explain why I am not dragging my knuckles like you and still have the ability to TYPE ON A FUCKING COMPUTER.. DUMBASS!

Oh, thats right, mine runs on circuit boards, ram memory, motherboards, and hard drives. Yours runs on pixy dust and hamsters running on a rusty wheel.

I am glad I don't think like you. 

You, "I believe in godsperm and magical invisible DNA. I believe in zombiegods who escape rigor mortis".

Stop masturbating on your bible, the pages will get stuck together and you wont be able to read the crap you spew.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You cannot define reality unless you think like a Christian

Funny, I am typing on a FUCKING COMPUTER which is real. Explain why I am not dragging my knuckles like you and still have the ability to TYPE ON A FUCKING COMPUTER.. DUMBASS!

Oh, thats right, mine runs on circuit boards, ram memory, motherboards, and hard drives. Yours runs on pixy dust and hamsters running on a rusty wheel.

I am glad I don't think like you. 

You, "I believe in godsperm and magical invisible DNA. I believe in zombiegods who escape rigor mortis".

Stop masturbating on your bible, the pages will get stuck together and you wont be able to read the crap you spew.

 

 

It was going to come to this eventually. If we're going to insult Jean, I'd like to recommend this technology to his royal highness, courtesy of good old, satan-fueled induction.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123174334.htm

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You asked

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You asked about fragmentation. In order for knowledge to be, you must have at least one subject connect to the other all the time. While there is diversity in the subjects,  there is a relationship of subjects.

CONSISTENT empiricism does not allow for such relationship thus it does not allow for such knowledge.

Where are you getting this qualifier from...did you make it up? Aparently so, but if you must, the things that "connects" one subject to another is epistemology. And your epistemology is broken such that it can't even do that...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

A consistent empiricist starts with a blank slate. Nothing. So all things that are received the child has no idea what is knowledge. He is fed all kinds of stuff. Then when he gets older, since logically he cannot remember everything, must try to find a relationship between the subjects.

Um, no. Empiricists start with something like "cogito, ergo sum" or something like that...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Thus language (which is non empirical), mathematics (non empirical) Logic (non Empirical),  Love (non empirical) (UNIVERSALS) are non empirical (Fragmentaton (non Empirical). Empiricism is the very pitty of ignorance.

I have a set of  stones. I separate these stones in to individuals, then into pairs, then into larger groups....I rearrange them in different combinations only to discover that every time I use different arrangements, I end up with the original set of stones, and behold, I've discover addition. On logic, you'd do well to read Godel...he asserted that any set of axioms could be proved from another set of set of axioms. Logic is messy-- not the pristine, sterile environment that most theist make it out to be. For this reason, I'm not compelled to think that it is anything more than some sort of abduction from observations in the universe, and our attempts to grapple, understand, and extend it are more or less empirical by means of thought experiments etc. And if love isn't empirical, then I suppose you never experience love. I'm sorry-- I guess you've never experienced your god's love either...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So the question for you is to demonstrate how a consistent empiricists can RELATE to other subjects via having knowledge.  If connotative definitions are non empirical, then the only way for a consistent empiricists to define is to jump up and down and grunt while he points to a tree like a monkey.

Definitions are meaningless without empirical experience... How would you even know what a monkey is if you had never seen one?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have discussed fragmentation more specifically on other posts. I may come back to it and do a whole post on it.

You do not know if you stick your hand in again that it will burn. AGain, empiricism is 100% experience. You are using 1 experiences for all experiences, and that is NOT empiricism. So you are a very bad empiricist.

Somethings don't require more than one experience... And it is certainly true that I can learn from the experiences of others. But I pity you, because by your own means, you cannot learn from experience, You have no idea that boiling water will burn you, do you? Or do you because you have experienced it?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Can you taste mathematics. Can you hear mathematics. Mathematics is non empirical since it is DEDUCTIVE and empiricism by definition is INDUCIIVE.

See my example above concerning discovering addition. I suppose one could do the same for just about any mathematical principle-- Pythagorean Theorem-- the basis for analytic geometry-- was discovered in this way. Differentials and Integrals too...

 

*You still haven't provided me a definitions. It seems you may be invoking a fallacy of ambiguous language...

*You still haven't answered the Scotsman fallacy either concerning other Christians. Any would be explanations merely assert that that such are "liberals" or "heretics", but this only validates my point.

*All you've asserted is "X is not empirical" without showing me why. Ad Nauseum, I might add....

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Repeat this every day to

Repeat this every day to yourself Jean: I am not intelligent. I am not rational. I'm a disrespectful person. I believe in everything I read as long as it's appealling to me as the bible was. I like to insult people because it makes me feel good. I am a very rude dude.

If you do this every day for long enough, and it may take years, eventually you will believe it. Kinda like reading the bible only this is a self help thing I've provided you with. Oh but that's right, it's evil because an atheist told you. Ugh it can't be right.
You are an evil person Jean and I will pray to the spahgetti monster during this noodlemas season for you to realize what a boil on the ass of humanity that you are.

Oh yeah, respectfully lol!
Becky:p

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You cannot define reality unless you think like a Christian

Funny, I am typing on a FUCKING COMPUTER which is real. Explain why I am not dragging my knuckles like you and still have the ability to TYPE ON A FUCKING COMPUTER.. DUMBASS!

Oh, thats right, mine runs on circuit boards, ram memory, motherboards, and hard drives. Yours runs on pixy dust and hamsters running on a rusty wheel.

I am glad I don't think like you. 

You, "I believe in godsperm and magical invisible DNA. I believe in zombiegods who escape rigor mortis".

Stop masturbating on your bible, the pages will get stuck together and you wont be able to read the crap you spew.

 

 

It was going to come to this eventually. If we're going to insult Jean, I'd like to recommend this technology to his royal highness, courtesy of good old, satan-fueled induction.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123174334.htm

 

 

His royal highness, yea, that's about how he views himself. Reality's a bitch if you stick your head in the sand like he does. He thought he could come in here like the Pride Piper (yea, I meant that) and got a dose of reality when we didn't follow his script.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But really, I'd like

Quote:
But really, I'd like you to explain how science works. That might make for far more entertaining reading.

Someone likes rubbernecking at the car wreck, don't they?

Jean reminds me of that kid in the Cheese It commercial when they dream about how the cheese got into the snack. "CHEESE IT"

After all his elaborate tripe what you ultimately end up with is "God did it". Sorry if I spoiled your fun for you. If you've seen one car wreck, you've seen em all.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, your core error is

Jean, your core error is your definition of 'Knowledge".

It sounds like you are using something like the traditional philosophical "justified, true belief", which is unworkable because it presupposes we can "know" what is "true", which makes it circular.

All that proves is what I and others have been pointing out, namely that philosophy is (mostly) bunk, just word-play.

Hume showed that empiricism, which he classifies as being about 'facts', can not lead to certainty, not that it was invalid. It is only in your context of the crazy definition of "knowledge" as requiring 100% certainty at all levels, in all contexts, that you can claim he therefore 'disproved' empiricism.

The truths of mathematics are in Hume's terms about 'relations', which I see as being of the "IF A THEN B" kind. If the assumed, chosen axioms happen to map into a particular real-world context, then math can validly be used to make conclusions and predictions about reality. Such conditional, relational statements are the closest we can get to philosophical "knowledge".

Another category of 100% knowledge statements are definitions, such as for geometric shapes, or "bachelors are unmarried men". But they are simply defining what particular words refer to when used by speakers of the particular language.

It would also be 'true' to assert, for example, that "all data about the world obtained directly or indirectly via our senses has an inevitable degree of uncertainty attached". That is as close to 100% certainty as we can get. It would not be true to say that "therefore no belief based on data obtained via the senses can contribute to knowledge in any way".

Also note the distinction between "sense data", ie the raw information of sight, sound, touch, and "data obtained via our senses" such as the reading on the dial of a measuring instrument.

In either case, statements based on empirical data that include a provisional estimate of the broad level of confidence we have attached to the data can be constructed that may still count as true, depending on exactly how they are phrased.

So it is possible to construct 100% true 'empirical' statements, but we must be careful to distinguish what category a statement falls into.

Of course we must all start with assumptions, and I have said somewhere in this whole mess which is our discussion with you, that I think we have to run with "cogito ergo sum", and then the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction as defining Logic. Beyond that, we must be prepared to revise any other assumptions, as we find ourselves going up blind alleys or around in circles or into road-blocks.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Other problems with Jean's

Other problems with Jean's definitions

"absolute"

He believes that one can't have absolute knowledge without God. Unfortunately, one can't have absolute knowledge with God either.

"consistent"

He's never given a definition (though I'm sure he believes he is the only such being on the planet).

the "ad hominem" fallacy

He believes that there can be an ad hom attack that is valid. I think it comes to the difference between what he uses and what he interprets as being used against him.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know you don't

Quote:
I know you don't believe me, but I really love you guys. I'm having a blast here.

I believe you love impressing yourself. But we'd rather you actually try to debate or do the right thing and masturbate in private. We are not impressed with your phallace.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:But

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
But really, I'd like you to explain how science works. That might make for far more entertaining reading.

Someone likes rubbernecking at the car wreck, don't they?

Jean reminds me of that kid in the Cheese It commercial when they dream about how the cheese got into the snack. "CHEESE IT"

After all his elaborate tripe what you ultimately end up with is "God did it". Sorry if I spoiled your fun for you. If you've seen one car wreck, you've seen em all. 

Hey, now. I've been away for a while. I'm a quart low on accidental irony. And while all car wrecks look the same after, the actual dynamics of the wreck play out a bit differently.

I personally prefer the ones that attempt to rationalize their belief in God, rather than beg the question by assuming God. (Yes, I know, even the rationalizations usually amount to question-begging, but at least it's entertaining to watch a mental contortionist in action.) But, there's something to be said for the complete mad-dogma approach preferred by the likes of Jean. The pure-blind assumption of God, coupled with the brazenly tautological acceptance that the word of the Bible proves the Bible is true, demonstrates a refreshing willful ignorance the like of which I haven't seen in many years.

The real icing on the cake, though, is the insistence that he is trained in logic while constantly (and consistently) making the most basic logical mistakes. He's like a kid pretending to be all grown up and rational, or a living example of cargo-cult logic.

Best of all, he has taken the empirical refutation of God so seriously, he denies empiricism to the point of solipsism. It rather indicates he understands that knowledge of reality leads to a dismissal of God from serious consideration. Ergo, his total ad hominem fallacy of his strawman liberalism is a tacit admission he understands reality favors atheism (which he conflates with liberalism), and so he'd rather deny reality.

Or he's just a troll. But if so, he's quite skilled. He's not let anything too obvious slip, though his list of 10 fallacies committed by liberals comes damned close. If he's not a troll, he's one of the most fucking obtuse people I've run across in a while.

Anyway, while I admit this wreck will look the same as the others when it's done (with Jean leaving, never having presented a single coherent proposition, and ignoring anything that is too discomfiting for him to address), it's enjoyable watching him try to communicate. Or preach. Or whatever it is he's trying to do with his poorly-employed use of the English language.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Brian37

nigelTheBold wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
But really, I'd like you to explain how science works. That might make for far more entertaining reading.

Someone likes rubbernecking at the car wreck, don't they?

Jean reminds me of that kid in the Cheese It commercial when they dream about how the cheese got into the snack. "CHEESE IT"

After all his elaborate tripe what you ultimately end up with is "God did it". Sorry if I spoiled your fun for you. If you've seen one car wreck, you've seen em all. 

Hey, now. I've been away for a while. I'm a quart low on accidental irony. And while all car wrecks look the same after, the actual dynamics of the wreck play out a bit differently.

I personally prefer the ones that attempt to rationalize their belief in God, rather than beg the question by assuming God. (Yes, I know, even the rationalizations usually amount to question-begging, but at least it's entertaining to watch a mental contortionist in action.) But, there's something to be said for the complete mad-dogma approach preferred by the likes of Jean. The pure-blind assumption of God, coupled with the brazenly tautological acceptance that the word of the Bible proves the Bible is true, demonstrates a refreshing willful ignorance the like of which I haven't seen in many years.

The real icing on the cake, though, is the insistence that he is trained in logic while constantly (and consistently) making the most basic logical mistakes. He's like a kid pretending to be all grown up and rational, or a living example of cargo-cult logic.

Best of all, he has taken the empirical refutation of God so seriously, he denies empiricism to the point of solipsism. It rather indicates he understands that knowledge of reality leads to a dismissal of God from serious consideration. Ergo, his total ad hominem fallacy of his strawman liberalism is a tacit admission he understands reality favors atheism (which he conflates with liberalism), and so he'd rather deny reality.

Or he's just a troll. But if so, he's quite skilled. He's not let anything too obvious slip, though his list of 10 fallacies committed by liberals comes damned close. If he's not a troll, he's one of the most fucking obtuse people I've run across in a while.

Anyway, while I admit this wreck will look the same as the others when it's done (with Jean leaving, never having presented a single coherent proposition, and ignoring anything that is too discomfiting for him to address), it's enjoyable watching him try to communicate. Or preach. Or whatever it is he's trying to do with his poorly-employed use of the English language.

A t-bone, rear end, or head on, certainly may have different speeds and different driver skills, but a wreck is a wreck. You can wreck a Lamborghini as well as a Tercel. A skunk can spray Paris Hilton perfume on themselves as well as a cheap Wal Mart brand and both are still masking a smell. He thinks his mental gymnastics constitute evidence when all he has is a skunk(his logic) dressed up in a Tux(elaborate tripe).

I was teasing you fyi. I too find chew toys fun, especially ones who think they are all that and a bag of chips.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: he's one of the most

Quote:
he's one of the most fucking obtuse people I've run across in a while.

If there were an award for understatement of the year, that would be at the top of my list.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hi JCG

Senses are not perfect due to sin.  More specific, original sin.

___________________________

Hi Nigel,

I know we disagree, but let me ask you a question, and be honest. Since you are a logical positivist, wouldn't you agree that logical positivism is consistent empiricism. a lot more consistent then those who claim to be empiricists and at the same time claim not to be logical positivists.

Don't you agree that those who claim to be empiricists (naturalism or humanism) on here and deny logical positivism are inconsistent. help me out here. Be honest.

I really thought all the logical positivists died out. I cannot believe you claim to be. Is there a logical positivist club somewhere where I can meet these people? It would be very fun.

Logical positivists insist that a piece of language cannot meaningfully state an empirical fact (either truly or falsely) unless it is empirically verifiable by methods akin to those of natural science. But many observed that this “verification principle” itself could not be empirically verified in that way. That argument led to the demise of logical positivism as an influential philosophical movement.

And this is why I can't believe you or anybody else is still a logical positivist.

You see, as a logical positivist, you wouldn't say that my theology is wrong as much as it is nothing or non-sense. The others would say it is bigoted. There is a difference.

You also believe that a sentence is meaningless without sensation. So how is it that you are writing me? Are you licking the typewriter?

__________________

Hi Brian47

You seem like a very angry person. Are you doing okay in life? Perhaps you would like to have a seat and talk for a while.

__________________

Hi UBuntU,

Since I start from the ultimate universal that created all subjects, then logically it is not fragmented. But again, I asked you to show me how atheism is NOT fragmented and you ask me. I don't mind this, but this is typical of atheists who don't have answers.

Quote:
Um, no. Empiricists start with something like "cogito, ergo sum" or something like that...

lol, no, no, no. cogito, ergo sum is via Rene Descartes and as I've said before, Descartes was not an empiricists. He was a Rationalists (Capital R). Rationalism capital R is a 100% separate epistemology from empiricism. Thus you have self refuted yourself and given all here the best example of the inconsistency of empiricism. lol. Grab a shovel out back and start digging.

Quote:
Definitions are meaningless without empirical experience... How would you even know what a monkey is if you had never seen one?

Thank you. It took a while to break you, but finally the shoe fits. So then you would have to admit that language is ALSO meaningless without empirical experience. How are you able to comprehend grammatical order (since order is non-empirical) to construct thought (which is also non-empirical).

What about truth. Truth is also non-empirical. So is knowledge. So is love. Ready, set, go. lol

Since logic is non-empirical, and since the scotsman fallacy was created by an atheist, the the so called fallacy is a refutation of the inconsistency of atheism itself. 

Also, since the so called fallacy is not sound in every instance, and since logic by definition must be universal, I have don't believe this is a valid logical fallacy. However, I can discuss definition.

Definition is difficult outside of Scripture. Scripture defines the essentials of the faith. And since I am arguing via an axiom of Scripture, I am valid and sound. However, via probable means, simply via Webster's dictionary. I will get into the difficulty of definition later via an empirical, Rational, or mystical means.

However, via my definition within my argument via God's Word which is one of my axioms, my argument itself allows for such thus keeping my argument as a whole in tact.

I have demonstrated it, you just don't like it. Can you experience language or more specifically, can you experience truth. A mystic would say, yes, an empiricists would say no. What say you? Can you see logic? Can you eat a big slab of Euclid's 5th Axiom? Was Euclid wrong?

___________________

Hi Rebecca,

Oh, this was the Bill Clinton motto. Say it a lie enough times and it becomes my truth. Are you in politics? Is this why you are an atheist? lol. I thank you for your kind and thoughtful remarks. And I will continue to pray for you.

__________________

Hi Brian47

What script? Oh, you mean the Bible. Your behavior is what the Bible talks about. So your absurdity demonstrates God (Psalms 14:1).

_____________________

Hi BobSpencer1,

You do not know what circular is. The Infinite Reference point deduces down and all propositions have meaning via that axiom. Again, I flow from the top down and I never go back up to the top, but rather the top by definition allows for the rest of my argument.

I know that you think philosophy is bunk, since atheism is the death of philosophy. Again, I finally broke you in. That's been my whole point. So if atheism bring death of philosophy, and since ethics/morals along with knowledge and beauty are philosophical via understanding, ergo, atheism brings death to knowing, and ethics, and beauty.

Thus atheism is ugly. Well, you would just say it is nothing or non-sense. But in reality (oh wait, atheism would be the death of reality too).  So perhaps you are not talking with me, perhaps you are a dream and the dreamer is about to wake up. lol.

Again, Hume eventually, but being consistent, became non-empirical and a Skeptic. Hume found his defeat via consistency. That's why people like you have been programmed to be non-consistent.

So if you are going to quote Hume, quote the end of His work, not the middle. For logically, the work of a man must be the work as a whole.

Unmarried men is tautological. But definition and language to you is also nonsense and nothing. So you are Bill Clinton are stuck and don't know how to define IS.

Quote:
It would also be 'true' to assert, for example, that "all data about the world obtained directly or indirectly via our senses has an inevitable degree of uncertainty attached"

Again, thank you, it's about time. The cults take about this long also. The question is however, what is that degree of uncertainty in proportion to 100% "certainty?" I mean how do you know that the degree is 99% to absolute or 1% to absolute. And remember, philosophy is bunk, and empiricism is philosophical, so what's going on. Twilight Zone.

Since degrees are non-empirical, and "certainty" is non-empirical, then how do you know the degree of certainty via empiricism using strict empiricism. Again, you are measuring empiricism via non empirical means thus self refuting empiricism.

Sense Data needs interpretation. Since interpretation are chemical squirts of your brain, then how can you cross via empirical interpretation. What exactly is empirical interpretation?

As an empiricists, since interpretation of the sense data is non empirical, then all you can do is look at the sense data and not KNOW what it is. It could be a scibble. But again, if you grew up as 100% empiricists since a baby, you would be homeless or in a mental hospital.

Truth is also non-empirical. What does truth taste like?

Quote:
that include a provisional estimate of the broad level of confidence

This is non empirical. What does a provisional estimate of the broad level of confidence sound like?

Quote:
So it is possible to construct 100% true 'empirical' statements, but we must be careful to distinguish what category a statement falls into.

Categories? What does a category look like? What color is it? You are talking non-empirical while you claim to be defending empiricism. You need lessons from Nigel. Nigel is a logical positivist which is a consistent empiricist. I'm not sure if he is educated in this, but if he is, then category, and language, and confidence, and degree are nothing nonsense.

Quote:
Of course we must all start with assumptions, and I have said somewhere in this whole mess which is our discussion with you, that I think we have to run with "cogito ergo sum", and then the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction as defining Logic. Beyond that, we must be prepared to revise any other assumptions, as we find ourselves going up blind alleys or around in circles or into road-blocks.

Exhibit B your honor. Cogito Ergo Sum is Descartes, and he was NOT NOT an empiricists. He was a Capital R Rationalists. All I can say at this point is Wow.

You have a lot to do. You have completely done all the work for me in refuting empiricism. I'm serious Bob. You are mixing up epistemologies. Now I know why you think philosophy is bunk, it defeats atheism.

_______________________________

Hi JCG,

I have defined things. What would you like me to define?

_______________________________

HI Nigel,

Nigel, Nigel.  I can't be rational via you because I am non empirical. so unless I am empirical I remain irrational. So my math teacher and English teacher are irrational.

Logic is non logical positivism. I thought you were a well educated logical positivist. Now you are bringing in logic. I am very disappointed. The early logical positivists never did this.

Anyway, when you want to be a real logical positivist look me up, and we'll talk.

_______________________________

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).