You Can't Argue Against God

[Madsaac]

Reality is confusing, so I’d be a fool if I claimed not to be confused. Especially by the last century of theoretical physics, which is just beginning to catch up with philosophy in challenging our ideas about objective reality.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
- Werner Heisenberg

“A physicist is an atom’s way of describing itself”
- Niels Bohr

Yeah but that's all maybes and possibilities, and that's all good if you want to live in a 'imagine this' and 'what if we could do that' etc. That doesn't make make MRI machines.

Humans don't live in that world, we live in the real world and an real objective world. And it's the best we've got.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might want to look up what "empirical" means.

To give an extreme example we might both agree on: when a schizofrenic experiences hearing voices, he does not have empirical evidence of voices.

Mere "personal experience" is not empirical.

...

Depends on the version of empericism you use.
"...
1.2 Empiricism
Empiricists also endorse the Intuition/Deduction thesis, but in a more restricted sense than the rationalists: this thesis applies only to relations of the contents of our minds, not also about empirical facts, learned from the external world. By contrast, empiricists reject the Innate Knowledge and Innate Concept theses. Insofar as we have knowledge in a subject, our knowledge is gained, not only triggered, by our experiences, be they sensorial or reflective. Experience is, thus, our only source of ideas. ..."

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Relective means personal experince as in the mind and not external sensory experince.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not an empirical claim either, but a judgement call.

...

Now give evidence or whatever you call that for your judgement call. And remember it can't be a subjective experince.

 

[Madsaac]

I call it a human conceptualization of our very limited experience of existential phenomena.

Yeah it may well be our limited experience buts it's the BEST we have got, or do you know of something better?

Everything that exists, and exists how it exists, because it has been deemed possible. The source of what has been deemed possible, and not possible, is a the greatest mystery.

Again, it has been deemed possible because it's the BEST explanation we have got, or do you know of something better?

This is irrelevant myopicism.

I'm not sure what that means, what do you mean?

Even though we may have different feelings/ thoughts about an element/s, it still exists no matter what anyone's feelings/thoughts/experiences suggest. It still exists. Or do you think its doesn't exist in some way?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah it may well be our limited experience buts it's the BEST we have got, or do you know of something better?
...

How do you know that you speak for a we and how do you know it is the BEST?

 

[Madsaac]

Yeah, please explain how you understand this:
"... According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes. ..."
"... Kuhn also claims that all science is based on assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions – a paradigm – comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation. ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then we will take it from there.

No, I think science 'ideas' are cumulative, they build upon each other. It just makes sense, like all ideas can grow from a starting position and improved and built upon.

A very long time ago, humans started to use science, formulated ideas and these ideas have grown. It's happening right before our eyes.

And we don't need any subjective thoughts for this to happen because they have been proven via methodical processes, which have been agreed upon by the scientist throughout history and the world.

This is how humanity has developed objective truths/reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I think science 'ideas' are cumulative, they build upon each other. It just makes sense, like all ideas can grow from a starting position and improved and built upon.

A very long time ago, humans started to use science, formulated ideas and these ideas have grown. It's happening right before our eyes.

And we don't need any subjective thoughts for this to happen because they have been proven via methodical processes, which have been agreed upon by the scientist throughout history and the world.

This is how humanity has developed objective truths/reality.

Yeah, you think...

But you don't doubt your own thinking as far as I can tell.

 

[Madsaac]

Without the great mystery source determining what is possible and what is not, science would have no consistency to theorize about, or investigate.

Yes but scientist (some of the best minds ever) have agreed upon a form of consistency to investigate.

There is no real proof without certainty. And we cannot logically ever be certain. So when we humans claim we have proof, we are fooling ourselves. Lying to ourselves.

No we can never be certain but science gives us the best chance to be certain.

Remember we are talking about objective truth, not what humans may 'ponder' so we aren't fooling ourselves when we use the best systems we possibly can, devised by the best scientific brains.

 

[Madsaac]

Yeah, you think...

But you don't doubt your own thinking as far as I can tell.

Yeah, it seems to make very logical sense, ideas are built, expanded and improved. Scientific approaches, that aren't allowed opinions just facts

You don't think this happens?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah but that's all maybes and possibilities, and that's all good if you want to live in a 'imagine this' and 'what if we could do that' etc. That doesn't make make MRI machines.

Humans don't live in that world, we live in the real world and an real objective world. And it's the best we've got.

We live in the same (ever changing) world, you and I. We just understand it differently.

As for mind-independent, objective reality, if that exists at all it will always be elusive and mercurial to subjective beings like ourselves. You may believe you see the world as it really is, but the evidence from science and philosophy is that the best you can attain is an approximate representation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No we can never be certain but science gives us the best chance to be certain.

...

Then there is no best chance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, it seems to make very logical sense, ideas are built, expanded and improved.

You don't think this happens?

You really don't doubt your thoughts if your thoughts correspond to objective reality or not.
Okay. I will stop answering you for now.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, I think science 'ideas' are cumulative, they build upon each other. It just makes sense, like all ideas can grow from a starting position and improved and built upon.

A very long time ago, humans started to use science, formulated ideas and these ideas have grown. It's happening right before our eyes.

And we don't need any subjective thoughts for this to happen because they have been proven via methodical processes, which have been agreed upon by the scientist throughout history and the world.

This is how humanity has developed objective truths/reality.

You may want to study a little philosophy of science, to familiarise yourself with the way your assumptions have been challenged.

Maybe start with Thomas Kuhn.

Scientific Revolutions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Madsaac]

How do you know that you speak for a we and how do you know it is the BEST?

Science processes have been shown, over and over to be the best we have at showing what is real.

Do you know of something better?

 

[Madsaac]

You may want to study a little philosophy of science, to familiarise yourself with the way your assumptions have been challenged.

Maybe start with Thomas Kuhn.

Scientific Revolutions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What makes you think his assumptions are the best?

It may be said that Kuhn's focus on the social and historical aspects of science has been criticized for downplaying the role of evidence and rational argumentation in scientific progress.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What makes you think his assumptions are the best?

It may be said that Kuhn's focus on the social and historical aspects of science has been criticized for downplaying the role of evidence and rational argumentation in scientific progress.

Kuhn was a physicist, who became interested in the history and philosophy of science after researching a course he was asked to teach at Harvard, on Aristotle. He was as well placed as anyone to make observations about the way natural sciences progressed, as academic disciplines.

Experience teaching physics to undergraduates led him to observe wryly that “Physics students are distressingly willing to receive the word, from lecture and textbook.”

He certainly didn’t downplay evidence, or anything of the sort. He identified a number of scientific values, which underpinned scientific rigour and differentiated science from pseudoscience.

 

[PureX]

So you have no definition, no clear concept, of truth.

That sounds convenient.

The truth is what is. Everyone knows this. The problem is that what is, is so much greater than any one human can ever know. All we can ever know of it is the tiny sliver that we experience and understand for ourselves.

The fact you keep asking your fellow humans to tell you what the truth is indicates that you refuse to recognize the fact of your (and all our) inability to ascertain it. Because you believe that your triune godhead of empiricism, materialism, and scientism can, will, and is revealing it to us.

But it's not. And it never will. Because it's just limited human methodology.

 

[PureX]

Yeah it may well be our limited experience buts it's the BEST we have got, or do you know of something better?

Yes. Religion, philosophy, and art provide us with an awareness of ethical morality. Which is far more important than the physical functionality that science gives us. Stop worshipping science as the be-all and end-all. Because it very clearly is not.

Again, it has been deemed possible because it's the BEST explanation we have got, or do you know of something better?

I know what matters far more, to us and to the planet, yes.

I'm not sure what that means, what do you mean?

It refers to a flaw of conceptual vision that blinds one to the bigger view.

Even though we may have different feelings/ thoughts about an element/s, it still exists no matter what anyone's feelings/thoughts/experiences suggest. It still exists. Or do you think its doesn't exist in some way?

There are no "elements" but in your head. There is only undifferentiated phenomena. And even that we can only presume to be so. Until you understand this, you will have no idea where your mind stops and the world begins.

 

[PureX]

Yes but scientist (some of the best minds ever) have agreed upon a form of consistency to investigate.

As humans, they perceive that consistency in a similar way. That doesn't mean that how they are perceiving it is accurate, though.

No we can never be certain but science gives us the best chance to be certain.

No, it does not. Science does not seek nor proclaim certainty. It is the mythical lie of scientism that asserts that. Please stop believing it. Doing so is just as bad for all of us as believing and asserting that God wrote the Bible.

Remember we are talking about objective truth, not what humans may 'ponder' so we aren't fooling ourselves when we use the best systems we possibly can, devised by the best scientific brains.

'Objective truth' is a mythical condition that we humans can never experience. A myth that the scientism cult pushes on us constantly. Just like the Bible idolater cult tries to push it's lies about God writing the Bible on us constantly. But they are both pushing ideas that neither of them can know to be so. Which makes them both dishonest from the start.

We need to recognize this, and to reject their claims, if we hope to ever be truly honest and wise human beings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Depends on the version of empericism you use.

No.

There is no context in which "subjective personal experience" would qualify as empirical evidence.
They are as good as exact opposites.