You Can't Argue Against God

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I will as soon as you tell me what purple tastes like.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that you speak for a we

Because it is a general statement. "we" is humanity.

and how do you know it is the BEST?

The track record of consistently producing successful results.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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


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.

I'm counting down till you get accused of "scientism" by this poster.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

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

"...
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

The problem you have is that at least one version of empericism allows for reflective experince.
Reflective: - relating to or characterized by deep thought; thoughtful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Yes, this is why scientific ideas are called "theories" and not "facts".
Science, in that sense, is the ever continued quest to zero-in on truth and never being sure you actually reached it.
It's why theories are ALWAYS open to be questioned, no matter how unlikely it seems that they may be wrong.
It's why theories are ALWAYS open to new evidence which might be discovered and require changing, or even completely discarding, the theories.


And this is a good thing. It makes science an intellectually honest quest for knowledge with build in mechanisms for learning, progress and self-correction.

I just take issue with people who want to claim or imply that because such is the case, we can ignore science because "it's not certain anyway", to the point where they even start to argue that "reality" might not be real.

It's a preposterous stance to take.

Atoms exist. Germs exist. Relativity works. Evolution happens.
Just because science can't offer 110% certainty on these matters doesn't mean that the above statements aren't reasonably reliable. So reliable in fact, that we might as well call them facts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


The track record of consistently producing successful results.

Succesful is subjective as it is a personal subjective experience.
Now you refute that by giving objective sensory experience for successful as successful.
Simply describe what successful looks like.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm counting down till you get accused of "scientism" by this poster.

I can do it for you for this version of scientism:
"Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]"

Scientism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You also a variant of best or only. But that is old news.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You are making a species of a category error.
The topic is discerning reality. Finding out how reality works.
Not what the best, or preferred, way is to organize society and / or social conduct in ethical terms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are making a species of a category error.
The topic is discerning reality. Finding out how reality works.
Not what the best, or preferred, way is to organize society and / or social conduct in ethical terms.

Yeah. That doesn't happen in reality. That is all only in your mind as personal subjective beliefs of yours. You are hallucinating society.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Simply describe what successful looks like.

Planes fly.
GPS accurately pinpoints your position.
Nukes explode.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can do it for you for this version of scientism:
"Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]"

Scientism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You also a variant of best or only. But that is old news.

If you disagree, show me a method with a better track record.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah. That doesn't happen in reality. That is all only in your mind as personal subjective beliefs of yours. You are hallucinating society.

***STAFF EDIT***

I didn't speak about what "happens in reality" (like organizing society)
I spoke about how reality works and what reality is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Having asked that, let's do an experiment.
Let's both build a GPS systems.

I get to only use science.
You get to use anything BUT science. You can use whatever else you want.
Who's GPS system will have the best chance of actually working, do you think?

Okay, but after that, let’s do another. Let’s both conduct a symphony. You get to use your GPS, the Large Hadron Collider, and The James Webb Space Telescope. I get to use musicians. What do you think?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, but after that, let’s do another. Let’s both conduct a symphony. You get to use your GPS, the Large Hadron Collider, and The James Webb Space Telescope. I get to use musicians. What do you think?

I think yours is a prime example of the category error I spoke about earlier.


But just to make it fun, I'll use an AI engine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Planes fly.
GPS accurately pinpoints your position.
Nukes explode.

No, how succesful as succes looks like in external sensory experince terms.
What is the color of succes if any? What is the form and shape if any? What is the weight and other physical measurements of succes if any? And so on, external sensory experince or scientifc measurement standard.
Do that, do the actual emperical experince of what succes is as you experince it in sensory terms.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think yours is a prime example of the category error I spoke about earlier.


But just to make it fun, I'll use an AI engine.

Shostakovich has no reason to fear either of us

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you disagree, show me a method with a better track record.

No, show me better as empirical. Just as above, what better looks like and so on. Actual sensory experince as empirical.

 

[Sargonski]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Gods don’t appear and make themselves known so we mortals can debate them. All we have are other mortals who claim one type of god or another exists, and this can be disputed and debated.


That is up to those fallible mortals who think a God exists.


What knowledge is there? All we have is cultural lore and mortals who think its true to some degree or another. Mortals debate the issue of something not known to exist outside of human imagination.

My spider sences are detecting some of that "Existentialist Fallacy" among other things.

1) We are in a continuous debate with the Creator .. the one thing we know for sure .. and the only thing .. which is the basis of the existentialist fallacy - just question the the others perception of reality and you can thwart any argument

"You Don't know God" ? is said - and nor do you know that I don't know God .. Assumed premise fallacy .. among other things .. in a circular dance on both sides of the equation ..

Another big problem with the "You don't know God" assertion is that you have not defined God .. which once done in this case will make the existential fallacy go away .. as both have agreed on the perspective.

How can you say I don't know about something that you have not defined. If you have not stated what it is that we don't know - how can we say whether we know it or not .. which is a big "We don't know nothing" = we know something LOL - and now we have a mathamatical proof of the fallacy .. right before your very eyes.

For example -- Some define God as the Wind .. others the Sun .. in each case the "You don't know God" statement is false .. as indeed I do know at least something about the wind .. and the Sun.

What is God ladies ? how can you have a coherent conversation about the attributes of God .. when you havn't defined what God is ? .. one person thinking God is Wind .. the other beliving God is an anthropomorphic xenophobic Genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of Human characteristics .. an illogical flip floping trickster God .

Or .. some might say .. 2) perhaps God is the "I AM" -- as in the Monty Python Philosopher song ! Do you not agree with this hypothesis !?

 

[Nakosis]

My spider sences are detecting some of that "Existentialist Fallacy" among other things.

1) We are in a continuous debate with the Creator .. the one thing we know for sure .. and the only thing .. which is the basis of the existentialist fallacy - just question the the others perception of reality and you can thwart any argument

"You Don't know God" ? is said - and nor do you know that I don't know God .. Assumed premise fallacy .. among other things .. in a circular dance on both sides of the equation ..

Another big problem with the "You don't know God" assertion is that you have not defined God .. which once done in this case will make the existential fallacy go away .. as both have agreed on the perspective.

How can you say I don't know about something that you have not defined. If you have not stated what it is that we don't know - how can we say whether we know it or not .. which is a big "We don't know nothing" = we know something LOL - and now we have a mathamatical proof of the fallacy .. right before your very eyes.

For example -- Some define God as the Wind .. others the Sun .. in each case the "You don't know God" statement is false .. as indeed I do know at least something about the wind .. and the Sun.

What is God ladies ? how can you have a coherent conversation about the attributes of God .. when you havn't defined what God is ? .. one person thinking God is Wind .. the other beliving God is an anthropomorphic xenophobic Genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of Human characteristics .. an illogical flip floping trickster God .

Or .. some might say .. 2) perhaps God is the "I AM" -- as in the Monty Python Philosopher song ! Do you not agree with this hypothesis !?

Sure, I worship the wind as God. What is your argument against it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think yours is a prime example of the category error I spoke about earlier.


But just to make it fun, I'll use an AI engine.

How do you as empirical know ?
Or how do you know fun? You know by now, form, color and so on. Empirical, remember!!!