Freaking out about what we really can "know" here...

[1137]

Please note that you actually addressed nothing in this retort...

If you want to address a claim of miracle, or of brain imps causing depression, don't you have to formulate some sort of standard for determining what is the most likely cause of those phenomena or claims? Don't you have to have some standard for judging criteria?

Of course you do - and if you set that standard on the acceptance of imaginary invisible entities, or on completely unsubstantiated rhetoric then that's certainly your prerogative. But you must also, if you're being intellectually honest, admit that the standards required for imaginary invisible things is almost infintiely inferior to those standards which are based on observable, repeatable, testable empirical evidence.

So while, yes, technically you can posit that depression is actually caused by invisible brain imps instead of chemical imbalances in the brain, or that humans can fly through other dimensions and talk to magic sky fairies, the evidence that is going to support your assertion is going to be incredibly flimsy and based on a desire to believe moreso than actual substantiating data.

If you consider truth claims based on imaginary invisible desires to be equal in value to truth claims based empirical data, then that's a whole other topic, isn't it?



Your entire reasoning for why you can no longer argue that miracles do not happen is based on two flawed premises, as I showed you earlier in the post that no one seemed to read without getting defensive.



If you don't think our standard of observation is sufficient, what do you suggest we replace it with.
At this point, your argument only has any value if you have something other than observation. (Also, please note that we can design tools to allow us to "see" things that our 5 senses cannot detect.)

Again, if you are somehow arguing that "random friggin' guesses and faith in magic" is somehow equal in value to empirical data when it comes to truth claims, then there's not much more to discuss is there?

Well actually all I was suggesting was that we don't know as much as we'd like to think, but I now wonder if there's a connection between non-belief and raging out, which crops up all over the internet.

 

[outhouse]

Well actually all I was suggesting was that we don't know as much as we'd like to think

You mean YOU don't know was much as YOU think?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well actually all I was suggesting was that we don't know as much as we'd like to think,

There are gaps in knowledge - yes. Good observation.

but I now wonder if there's a connection between non-belief and raging out, which crops up all over the internet.

If you think that responding to flawed concepts and showing holes in your reasoning is akin to "raging out", you've probably never actually been in a heated argument.

 

[JoStories]

Well actually all I was suggesting was that we don't know as much as we'd like to think, but I now wonder if there's a connection between non-belief and raging out, which crops up all over the internet.

Not sure what 'raging out' means to you but if it refers to a good heated debate, the minute one looses their composure in a debated, one has lost, IMO. If you cannot defend your position without rancor, you don't have much of a position. To me, it intimates that that position is not as strong as the person would like to think.

 

[1137]

If you don't think our standard of observation is sufficient, what do you suggest we replace it with.
At this point, your argument only has any value if you have something other than observation. (Also, please note that we can design tools to allow us to "see" things that our 5 senses cannot detect.)

I'm fascinated to hear how you've become able to interpret data without use of your senses.

 

[JoStories]

Of course you do - and if you set that standard on the acceptance of imaginary invisible entities, or on completely unsubstantiated rhetoric then that's certainly your prerogative. But you must also, if you're being intellectually honest, admit that the standards required for imaginary invisible things is almost infintiely inferior to those standards which are based on observable, repeatable, testable empirical evidence.

I don;t think inferior is a fair word here. I think a better way of understanding this would be that at this time in history, we have no way of objectively measuring said phenomena. It may be, or not, that some day we might have the means. To call that inferior seems a bit unfair to me.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don;t think inferior is a fair word here. I think a better way of understanding this would be that at this time in history, we have no way of objectively measuring said phenomena. It may be, or not, that some day we might have the means. To call that inferior seems a bit unfair to me.

I understand the connotation of the statement, but it's still accurate, regardless of how it comes across.

Random guesses based on emotional desire are always going to be inferior in value to estimations made on collected and observed data. There's just no two ways around that...

Here's a little test: What color are my socks?
You can't see me, you don't know me, and you don't know if I even live in a place where socks are customary. Your guess about my sock color will always be inferior in value to an estimation about my sock color based on gathering data from just a few variables. (Or by simply looking to see what color socks I have on). I don't think anyone in this conversation will ever try argue about the color of my socks based on their faith or by using divine methods, would they? You'd simply look down at my socks, if we were spatially close to one another, and tell me what color my socks were. It would be foolish to use your emotional attachment to your favorite color in attempts to logically deduce what color socks I may or may not have put on today, because there's a much better way for figuring out what color socks I have on and that's by simply looking, right?

Surely you follow.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm fascinated to hear how you've become able to interpret data without use of your senses.

First of all, that's not what I said. I'm not the one suggesting that we use some other method for interpreting the world - you are. But I'll still address it.

Like my eyes, your eyes cannot see Ultraviolet light, can they? Yet we know what the sun looks like in Ultraviolet...how is that possible?

 

[ether-ore]

Reason tells me there are things I do not know and this is not merely an issue of exposure to something. It can be said that I do not know something because of limited capacity. And that is the real issue, isn't it? Even with instruments, amplifying or magnifying information to our limited senses can we truly say that we have, or even can have a thorough and complete understanding of all things? What is being said, by skeptics of theism in every case, is that unless the senses can detect a thing (either directly or indirectly) then that thing does not exist. Reason seems to suggest that that cannot be the case and yet it is still nonetheless the claim that is made. There are many fancy ways of saying it but it always comes down to the same claim... if I can't see it, it doesn't exist.

When I said "limited capacity", it was not lost on me that the immediate thought of some is that that meant "limited intellectual capacity" rather than limited sensory capacity. Herein is part of the problem. The attitude of an "empiricist" is to assume (going in) that any truth claim not grounded in their own physical witnessing of it, is the result of diminished intellectual capacity on the part of the person making said truth claim. It's really about prejudice, false intellectual arrogance and hubris. It is wanting to believe that the empirical world is superior in every way to what reason may otherwise suggest. While reason may suggest that there are things that humans do not know, the empiricist/atheist will still claim that it cannot exist until he personally sees it.

This issue of miracles is a red herring. They cannot be proven and there is no need to prove them. Signs and miracles are intended to strengthen the already existing faith of the believer. They were never intended to and indeed it is impossible for them to create faith where none exists. All that we can say about miracles is that we who believe have to hold explanations of them in abeyance until God chooses to reveal His methods to us. In the mean time what is important is the gospel of Jesus Christ; His atonement and our responsibility to Him and one another. What all of this is really about is that It seems the empiricist/atheist thinks he can discredit living according to gospel principles by discrediting the tangential issue of miracles. The truth they are missing however, is that miracles are not and never have been directly connected to the production of faith and from not living, to religiously living gospel priciples.

 

[outhouse]

It can be said that I do not know something because of limited capacity.

Which is factually false.

You don't know something because you lack the education to understand fully the topic you choose interest in.

And that is the real issue, isn't it?

The issue is lack of education often due to closed minds unwilling to accept credible knowledge.


When holding fringe belief patterns not followed by most, said person generates a thinking patter to justify said belief right or WRONG, a pattern of justification is developed.

This justification stops credible education and limits intellectual growth and knowledge.

The attitude of an "empiricist" is to assume (going in) that any truth claim not grounded in their own physical witnessing of it, is the result of diminished intellectual capacity on the part of the person making said truth claim. It's really about prejudice, false intellectual arrogance and hubris.

This is a faith based argument from ignorance.

Its claiming bias on a scale that factually does not exist so that you can justify your faith. It sad really when people refuse what is known without debate.

Reality is many different faiths people possess are contradicted by factual evidence, they just refuse to open their mind.


Fanaticism and fundamentalism is a global embarrassment to humanity, and its why I would love to see my fellow atheist and theist push for the growth of humanity, not its retardation.

 

[outhouse]

This issue of miracles is a red herring. They cannot be proven and there is no need to prove them.

Factually false. Miracles can be proven to be natural occurrence or luck.

And perfectly clear examples can be provided where we see mythological origins of miracles.

Many so called miracles are nothing more then dead luck, like someone being healed where the odds were slim for a good recovery.


You right that no miracle can be connected to divine intervention in way shape or form.

. In the mean time what is important is the gospel of Jesus Christ;

NO

Its only important to you, not the rest of reality. There is no divine jesus in any part of my world, only a long dead Galilean that took over Johns mission and was martyred after his death.

Your reality does not apply to mine in any way

The truth

Is your truth, no one else's.

 

[1137]

First of all, that's not what I said. I'm not the one suggesting that we use some other method for interpreting the world - you are. But I'll still address it.

Like my eyes, your eyes cannot see Ultraviolet light, can they? Yet we know what the sun looks like in Ultraviolet...how is that possible?

Well that point went right by, didn't it.

 

[outhouse]

Well that point went right by, didn't it.

Could you make a credible point?

 

[JoStories]

I understand the connotation of the statement, but it's still accurate, regardless of how it comes across.

Random guesses based on emotional desire are always going to be inferior in value to estimations made on collected and observed data. There's just no two ways around that...

Here's a little test: What color are my socks?
You can't see me, you don't know me, and you don't know if I even live in a place where socks are customary. Your guess about my sock color will always be inferior in value to an estimation about my sock color based on gathering data from just a few variables. (Or by simply looking to see what color socks I have on). I don't think anyone in this conversation will ever try argue about the color of my socks based on their faith or by using divine methods, would they? You'd simply look down at my socks, if we were spatially close to one another, and tell me what color my socks were. It would be foolish to use your emotional attachment to your favorite color in attempts to logically deduce what color socks I may or may not have put on today, because there's a much better way for figuring out what color socks I have on and that's by simply looking, right?

Surely you follow.

of course I follow but I would say this.... All of objective science began with guesses. Educated guesses, I grant you, but guesses nonetheless. Isn't that the impetus behind all hypothesis and theory? Take, for example, black holes. We can speculate but we cannot know with any degree of certainty at this point in time. In the future, its likely that more information and data will become available but at present, its conjecture for the most part.

 

[JoStories]

What all of this is really about is that It seems the empiricist/atheist thinks he can discredit living according to gospel principles by discrediting the tangential issue of miracles. The truth they are missing however, is that miracles are not and never have been directly connected to the production of faith and from not living, to religiously living gospel priciples.

I don;t believe that is a fair assessment of the atheistic position at all. Miracles are but one aspect of the Christian ideals, is it not? It seems, by your inference here, that you are saying that miracles are the one that atheists have an issue with and it is not. Some of the more salient points for the atheist would include that the historical data put forth in the Bible is inaccurate and further, that there is no corroboration or evidence that Jesus was divine, or even that he lived at all. A person can live by the principles set forth in the Bible but not be Christian at all. After all, there are some good moral points contained therein. And frankly, if what an atheist posits shakes your faith it was not much of a faith to begin with, was it?

 

[jonathan180iq]

of course I follow but I would say this.... All of objective science began with guesses. Educated guesses, I grant you, but guesses nonetheless. Isn't that the impetus behind all hypothesis and theory? Take, for example, black holes. We can speculate but we cannot know with any degree of certainty at this point in time. In the future, its likely that more information and data will become available but at present, its conjecture for the most part.

Absolutely - the simple way to say that is that knowledge expounds. We start with guesses, educated guesses hopefully, and then that grows into more and more knowledge and more and more guesses depending on what the outcome of studies for the prior educated guesses suggest.

We do not, in the modern world, start with conclusions, feign ignorance of all other knowledge, refuse to test those conclusions, and then claim them to be absolute truth... doing so would be an inferior way to ascertain knowledge.

 

[JoStories]

Absolutely - the simple way to say that is that knowledge expounds. We start with guesses, educated guesses hopefully, and then that grows into more and more knowledge and more and more guesses depending on what the outcome of studies for the prior educated guesses suggest.

We do not, in the modern world, start with conclusions, feign ignorance of all other knowledge, refuse to test those conclusions, and then claim them to be absolute truth... doing so would be an inferior way to ascertain knowledge.

I don't think anyone has suggested starting with a conclusion. I would say that one would pose a question....let's say we want to prove the veracity of mystical experiences. We start by asking, or rather, defining the concept, and on and on. We cannot start with a conclusion such as all mystical experiences are real because that intimate bias from the outset. We must, as researchers, start by having no conclusion and merely a question. We trace the history of the subject, do a thorough research review and then look at what we would like to prove/disprove or find answers to. This is the only way to do research of any credibility. And I would hope that whomever is doing the research would make use of someone who is outside the question, or maybe has an opposite view to the one held by the primary researcher.

 

[ether-ore]

Absolutely - the simple way to say that is that knowledge expounds. We start with guesses, educated guesses hopefully, and then that grows into more and more knowledge and more and more guesses depending on what the outcome of studies for the prior educated guesses suggest.

We do not, in the modern world, start with conclusions, feign ignorance of all other knowledge, refuse to test those conclusions, and then claim them to be absolute truth... doing so would be an inferior way to ascertain knowledge.

I would say that you are absolutely correct in terms of knowledge involving technological advancement. Not so much in terms of social. There has been no comparable advancement in knowledge regarding the social interactions of men. I think it is an incorrect assumption that because technology has advanced, man has become any more civilized that he has ever been. I happen to believe that on that front, there has been almost no progress. Men are just as apt to war as they have ever been, it is just that now, it is much more... efficient.

The knowledge men have for how to properly interact has been with us since Adam (we do not have to keep rediscovering it); it is just that men have chosen to ignore that knowledge because it interferes with what they want in terms of gratifying their lusts. God's laws as indicated in scripture provide the necessary instruction on how to behave. It is simply a matter of accepting and implementing them. Of course that will not happen. Men will continue to experiment with other methods of social control which will not work. Oh, they may work in the short term because those methods will be forced on the people, but it will all come to naught in the end and the cycle of violence will continue.

Advanced technology is not an indicator of intelligence and certainly not in terms of social interaction.

I am obliged to retract some of what I said. The original US Constitution utilized correct Biblical principles, but evil men have altered it and the checks and balances written into that instrument are become corrupted.

 

[outhouse]

The knowledge men have for how to properly interact has been with us since Adam

Stop it. You loose all credibility when you make claims that mythological figures existed in reality.

Adam factually has no historicity as ever existing.

 

[outhouse]

God's laws as indicated in scripture provide the necessary

These were factually mens laws. Only man wrote these laws for men.