You say that there is a god...

[Audie]

I tried searching for the unfindable one. But then I found it,, and almost disappeared in a puff of logic. That really stung! Never again.

Next Quest: the ineffable

 

[Yerda]

Next Quest: the ineffable

Eff that. Sounds hard.

 

[Audie]

Eff that. Sounds hard.

It's in the nature of a Quest.

If you can do it it's not worthy of a Quest

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you demonstrate that I did not answer the question?

Do I need to?

I can refer you to thread. I found no answer there to Luke when he wrote, "I am asking what the science is behind your claim that an entity exists out there namely God." You should be able to show me in this thread where your answer appeared, but I don't think you can. What is your empirical support for the existence of "God"? and where can I find that post?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The point would be missed, if you focused on other things.
I was simply showing that science does not and cannot give an answer to many real and very fundamental things in life.

Which is why we also have many branches of philosophy... metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, among many others... that help us when we wade out into the murky areas where "science" alone has little to ground itself on.

And the best part? They work a lot better than pseudo-Socratic sophistry.

 

[dybmh]

That's the god of Abraham, who has billions of adherents across a few religions including the world's two largest.

Not in the way it was described in the post I was replying to. Critics limit themselves to the cartoon version of a god because it's easier to criticize.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So as to be clear...

You said "Such evidence".... What do you mean, by such evidence?
Are you talking about Circumstantial evidence - evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another

Type of evidence (Pramana) to be accepted is the first thing to be established in Hindu philosophies.
"While the number of pramanas varies widely from system to system, many ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimony of past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi). Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, by each school of Indian philosophies."

Pramana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In my personal philosophy, I do not accept Arthapatti* and Śabda ('word', scriptures, the testimony of past or present reliable experts) without questioning.
* Arthapatti: knowledge arrived at through presumption or postulation.

 

[nPeace]

Do I need to?

If you accuse someone of something, for which the person denies, and calls you out for making false accusation, yes, you need to... if there is any shred of honesty in you.

I can refer you to thread. I found no answer there to Luke when he wrote, "I am asking what the science is behind your claim that an entity exists out there namely God." You should be able to show me in this thread where your answer appeared, but I don't think you can. What is your empirical support for the existence of "God"? and where can I find that post?

Oh no you don't.
If you claim the person did not answer, you either did so, on the basis that you followed the conversation - noting the person's response, or you did so, without noting the person's.
In the case of the later, that would mean you falsely accused the person.
In the case of the former, it would make you like @lukethethird, either unable to understand clear, simple answers... Or pretending not to be able to understand clear, simple answers.

If you can find @lukethethird's question, you can eaily find @nPeace's answer.
If you are too busy to follow the conversation, then, I would like to suggest you not make accusations when you don't have the facts, or try to gather those facts, where you can make an informed judgment.

 

[nPeace]

Which is why we also have many branches of philosophy... metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, among many others... that help us when we wade out into the murky areas where "science" alone has little to ground itself on.

And the best part? They work a lot better than pseudo-Socratic sophistry.

Not getting your point. Sorry.

 

[nPeace]

Type of evidence (Pramana) to be accepted is the first thing to be established in Hindu philosophies.
"While the number of pramanas varies widely from system to system, many ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimony of past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi). Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, by each school of Indian philosophies."

Pramana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In my personal philosophy, I do not accept Arthapatti* and Śabda ('word', scriptures, the testimony of past or present reliable experts) without questioning.
* Arthapatti: knowledge arrived at through presumption or postulation.

Not sure I got an answer. Is that a (a)Yes, (b)No, (c)I'm not sure what I was talking about, (d)Okay evidence isn't always pinned down to science., (e)I forgot what we were talking about and keep thinking about Hinduism.. Which?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not getting your point. Sorry.

That's quite all right - philosophy seeks to discover "truth" through argument and logic.
Science seeks to discover "truth" through empiricism and experimentation.*

Depending on what you're looking for the "truth" of, you need the right tool for the job.

*(perhaps ironically, what is "truth" itself is a philosophical, not scientific, question)

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Type of evidence (Pramana) to be accepted is the first thing to be established in Hindu philosophies.
"While the number of pramanas varies widely from system to system, many ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimony of past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi). Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, by each school of Indian philosophies."

Pramana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In my personal philosophy, I do not accept Arthapatti* and Śabda ('word', scriptures, the testimony of past or present reliable experts) without questioning.
* Arthapatti: knowledge arrived at through presumption or postulation.

Question everything. Everything in moderation. Always be mindful. Improve yourself always.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

That's quite all right - philosophy seeks to discover "truth" through argument and logic.
Science seeks to discover "truth" through empiricism and experimentation.*

Depending on what you're looking for the "truth" of, you need the right tool for the job.

*(perhaps ironically, what is "truth" itself is a philosophical, not scientific, question)

What if the irony is that to find truth you need all of the above?

Some of these schools of thought are as old, perhaps older than writing itself.

¹Perhaps these thoughts predate language, maybe the thoughts were what stirred the need, or desire for language in the first place? To answer the questions in our heads.

I know ancient man is given less credit than he deserves. Some believe the first impressions of our Neanderthal cousins were incorrect, that they were less intelligent than we are. Come to find out, they may have been more so. I bet anthropology is both an exciting and frustrating field.

¹Edit: edited for grammar

 

[ppp]

That's quite all right - philosophy seeks to discover "truth" through argument and logic.
Science seeks to discover "truth" through empiricism and experimentation.*

Not quite. Science seeks to discover models that successfully and reliably predict the behavior of aspects of the reality that is presented to us. That is only "truth" in the vernacular. But either way, that is not the same "truth" as in most disciplines of philosophy.

Btw, argument and logic are foundational components of methodological naturalism (science).

 

[TLK Valentine]

Next Quest: the ineffable

That would be me in the kitchen...

Oh, wait, no... that's "the inedible."

 

[lukethethird]

If you accuse someone of something, for which the person denies, and calls you out for making false accusation, yes, you need to... if there is any shred of honesty in you.


Oh no you don't.
If you claim the person did not answer, you either did so, on the basis that you followed the conversation - noting the person's response, or you did so, without noting the person's.
In the case of the later, that would mean you falsely accused the person.
In the case of the former, it would make you like @lukethethird, either unable to understand clear, simple answers... Or pretending not to be able to understand clear, simple answers.

If you can find @lukethethird's question, you can eaily find @nPeace's answer.
If you are too busy to follow the conversation, then, I would like to suggest you not make accusations when you don't have the facts, or try to gather those facts, where you can make an informed judgment.

Your God is all in your head. No place for a God or Heaven has been observed out there so scientific researchers in the behavioral studies have turned their attention to beliefs, it turns out that you as a believer are an interesting study.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

No place for a God or Heaven has been observed out there

How about in the massive voids in between the cosmic filaments? The largest of which is the Boötes Void also known as the Great Nothing!! Which sounds pretty metal, if you ask me. There is also the giant cold spot registered in the CMB.

 

[lukethethird]

How about in the massive voids in between the cosmic filaments? The largest of which is the Boötes Void also known as the Great Nothing!! Which sounds pretty metal, if you ask me. There is also the giant cold spot registered in the CMB.

Check it out and let us know what you come up with.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Check it out and let us know what you come up with.

Alright, I'd better pack my thermals...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you accuse someone of something, for which the person denies, and calls you out for making false accusation, yes, you need to

OK. I referred you to the thread, which to the best of my ability to discern, does not contain the answer the other poster was seeking. He didn't see one, and neither did I. What I did see is hundreds of words from you that never contain that answer or a link to it, yet you claim that the words are in there somewhere. You're basically saying that you have answered the question but don't feel like supporting the claim. That's fine, but you should expect the claim to be rejected, especially when it would be so easy for you to do that if such an answer existed in the thread.

Do you recall during the J6 hearings, there was a strange meeting in the White House in which Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani were asking White House counsel Pat Cipollone and White House lawyer Eric Herschmann to act based in evidence they claimed to have but hadn't produced. The attorneys demanded to see the evidence first, but kept getting excuses. Turns out, there was none, and this is why a critical thinker and empiricist needs to see the evidence, not just claims that it's out there somewhere.

Oh no you don't.
If you claim the person did not answer, you either did so, on the basis that you followed the conversation - noting the person's response, or you did so, without noting the person's.
In the case of the later, that would mean you falsely accused the person.
In the case of the former, it would make you like @lukethethird, either unable to understand clear, simple answers... Or pretending not to be able to understand clear, simple answers.

If you can find @lukethethird's question, you can eaily find @nPeace's answer.
If you are too busy to follow the conversation, then, I would like to suggest you not make accusations when you don't have the facts, or try to gather those facts, where you can make an informed judgment.

This is the kind of thing I mean. Look at how much you wrote, yet never provided the material or a link to it. And I assume that you never will. Notice that I don't ask you for it. I only mentioned what resulted from not producing it - rejection of the claim.

This is why I recommended taking the tack I did when somebody ignores a question repeatedly. Just answer for them allowing them to falsify your answer if it is incorrect, and then move on. You didn't do that. All you've done is to claim that you did give the requested answer, which has no persuasive power and was rejected. That's as fair as one can be. You have the power to prove your point if you are correct. If not, your only options are to not answer at all, agree that you never did answer him, or vamping as you're doing here. Since you have chosen to not produce evidence in support of your claim, this discussion has come to a resolution. Your insufficiently evidenced claim was rejected.