[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< The scientific method is the best tool humans have. >>>[/quote]On what sir, do you predicate this? I believe in the validity of the scientific method btw. I have very good reasons for doing so. What are yours?
[/quote]
It’s been very reliable throughout human history.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Science. Science being a body of knowledge. [/quote]
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
By the way Brother Chris, if you have any proof of something supernatural like spirits existing I recommend you present it to the James Randi foundation.
Anyone who can prove the existence of something supernatural/paranormal can collect $1,000,000
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
reading some of this stuff is like reading stuff from a Zen Master. " what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
lol
Just wondering how many have actually studied Philosophy at the college or university level? [/quote]
If a tree fell in the woods and there was no one there to perceive it…would it make a sound?
What do you consider college or university levels? [/quote]
You know the tree thing could be answered affirmatively, all you need is an instrument to detect it.** That’s one answer. Another answer based on ordinary language philosophy would be yes since we know what its like for trees to fall, that their hasn’t been a case of a tree falling that doesn’t make a sound. If you say that there can always be a first time where that isn’t the case, then from the ordinary language philosophy you would be using falling and trees in a peculiar way. Some are convinced with this line of arguing, I grant that its not satisfying to a more robust metaphysical approach. And for one who doesn’t like the ordinary language approach, I sense that person would be a skeptic doubting any knowledge claims at all.
As for your other question . Education that is continued past high school. I am thinking of the USA. I am assuming you are a citizen of the USA and you have gone to school in the USA.
THe reason i mention that is because a lot of what this tread talks about ( and its fun to talk and engage oneself here( to an extent) has been covered in the history of philosophy)
** Check out the book " Data, Instruments, And Theory . A Dialectical Approach to understanding Science" by Robert J. Ackermann
Hey everyone,
Just checking quickly - am currently travelling abroad and so have very limited internet access or time to give proper time to digest all the posts.
I will respond to those posts addressed to me and I also want to respond to some of the more general points.
I did want to clear a couple of things up though, simply because I think they may affecting how people read my posts.
I am NOT an atheist, I am agnostic and always have been.
I certainly would never make fun of religon, I don’t look down on it or think it crazy or anything like that. My real issue is when someone asserts their belief is fact and sometimes it appears the arguments given feel like they are claiming that their belief (or faith) doesn’t need to meet the same requirements that they are expecting of scientific or other theories.
I would say I believe as much in God as I do in the absolute certainty of logic
I choose to follow logic as if it were certain because that is what appears to lead to the best outcome, not because I am trying to follow what I think is most aligned with truth.
I don’t have a problem with someone choosing to base their life on their religos beliefs, for this very reason. I respect a priest as much as I do physicist, as ling as both are following what their believe. I don’t know who is more accurate in their assessment of what reality is.
As already mentioned, my only issue in this thread is the fact that the proponents of religon seem to be saying their ARE right, not that they could be. My please do correct me if I am wrong.
[quote]slippery_bear wrote:<<< Thanks Cortes but I’m no heavyweight philosopher[/quote]You’re a sharp kid with excellent debating intuition (intellectual agility) in my opinion as I’ve said. You led me around by the nose for several days which was humbling and aggravating when I discovered I was out in the weeds somewhere with you. You only need a generous dose of Jesus and some more time under your belt =] [quote]silee wrote:<<< a lot of what this tread talks about ( and its fun to talk and engage oneself here( to an extent) has been covered in the history of philosophy) >>>[/quote]It’s ALL been covered in the history of philosophy. Directly or indirectly. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Interesting, I am dogmatic, as well. Though I do have broad mind, with my filter turned to skeptic.[/quote]So not broad enough to change your dogma then? [quote]therajraj wrote:<<< {The scientific method has} been very reliable throughout human history. [/quote]How do you know? [quote]therajraj wrote:<<< By the way Brother Chris, if you have any proof of something supernatural like spirits existing I recommend you present it to the James Randi foundation. Anyone who can prove the existence of something supernatural/paranormal can collect $1,000,000 The Million Dollar Challenge - JREF [/quote]Nobody will ever collect. [quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Everything in science that is considered a fact is demonstrable in some form.[/quote]I couldn’t possibly disagree more. [quote]Scorched Soul wrote:<<< 1. I am NOT an atheist, I am agnostic and always have been. >>>[/quote]For my purposes at least it makes no difference whatsoever.[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:<<< 3. I would say I believe as much in God as I do in the absolute certainty of logic >>>[/quote]I say that logic IS your god.[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:<<< 4. I choose to follow logic as if it were certain because that is what appears to lead to the best outcome, not because I am trying to follow what I think is most aligned with truth. >>>[/quote]You get one star for intellectual honesty. (Bodyguard should take lessons) My respectometer twitched upward a bit with this statement.[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:<<< 6. As already mentioned, my only issue in this thread is the fact that the proponents of religon seem to be saying their ARE right, not that they could be. My please do correct me if I am wrong. >>>[/quote]Convictions about absolutes held in a non absolute fashion are worse than no convictions at all. In fact they ARE no convictions at all. [quote]Neuromancer wrote:Hope you get a good rest and find some time in the next couple of days to catch up.[/quote]Thank you.
You make it hard for me to quote you.
Have you ever been to a doctor, do you eat food, are you aware we put a man on the moon, do you wear glasses? All these things are science in action.
This is not my opinion, it’s a fact.
[quote]
You know the tree thing could be answered affirmatively, all you need is an instrument to detect it.** That’s one answer. Another answer based on ordinary language philosophy would be yes since we know what its like for trees to fall, that their hasn’t been a case of a tree falling that doesn’t make a sound. If you say that there can always be a first time where that isn’t the case, then from the ordinary language philosophy you would be using falling and trees in a peculiar way. Some are convinced with this line of arguing, I grant that its not satisfying to a more robust metaphysical approach. And for one who doesn’t like the ordinary language approach, I sense that person would be a skeptic doubting any knowledge claims at all. [/quote]
A less affirmative answer :
If a tree fell in the woods and there was no one there to perceive it, it would produce vibrations, but no sound.
sound being the percept of these vibration by a subject.
no subject, no sound.
[quote]kamui wrote:
But that would preclude the possibility of woodland critters. Also, let’s say there aren’t any woodland critters or any creatures around in hearing distance. In that case, if there is an anthropomorphic God, than He would hear it. If there is a non-personal non-contigent entity, my guess is that It simply knows it, but does not hear the tree in the same sense an Earthling creature would.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
By the way Brother Chris, if you have any proof of something supernatural like spirits existing I recommend you present it to the James Randi foundation.
Anyone who can prove the existence of something supernatural/paranormal can collect $1,000,000
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html[/quote]
Lol.
[quote]silee wrote:
You know the tree thing could be answered affirmatively, all you need is an instrument to detect it.** That’s one answer. Another answer based on ordinary language philosophy would be yes since we know what its like for trees to fall, that their hasn’t been a case of a tree falling that doesn’t make a sound. If you say that there can always be a first time where that isn’t the case, then from the ordinary language philosophy you would be using falling and trees in a peculiar way. Some are convinced with this line of arguing, I grant that its not satisfying to a more robust metaphysical approach. And for one who doesn’t like the ordinary language approach, I sense that person would be a skeptic doubting any knowledge claims at all.[/quote]
Thank you for that answer. It was a joke question I was presented with on the first day of my philosophy 101 class in college.
It’s somewhat of a metaphysics question.
[quote]As for your other question . Education that is continued past high school. I am thinking of the USA. I am assuming you are a citizen of the USA and you have gone to school in the USA.
THe reason i mention that is because a lot of what this tread talks about ( and its fun to talk and engage oneself here( to an extent) has been covered in the history of philosophy)
** Check out the book " Data, Instruments, And Theory . A Dialectical Approach to understanding Science" by Robert J. Ackermann[/quote]
I’ll have to check it out.
[quote]kamui wrote:
lol. I’ve been bested in distinction. I made no distinction between vibrations and sound. I made the assumptions that a distinction wouldn’t be made in the case. Thank you.
Regards,
BC
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
anthropomorphic God
[/quote]
This has always bothered me.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
anthropomorphic God
[/quote]
This has always bothered me. [/quote]
I’m gonna do my best and try to answer why. Because that would imply that man created God and it’s actually the other way around. Man created in God’s image. So your viewpoint is that man is a ‘theopomorphized’ creature.
I’m not sure I’m following you guys, but God uses anthropomorphic language in the bible to describe himself in gracious condescension to our limited capabilities. Our creation in His image refers to our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words thoughts and deeds. It is not somatic in any way. All men (and women) of any ethnic origin bear His image equally and are therefore of equal spiritual worth and dignity.
[quote]kamui wrote:
well the detecting device ( say a recorder) is an extension of man. So its not correct to say if no person was there it wouldn’t be perceive, since through the use of our recorder we are able to perceive it later on. Instruments are essential for doing science, and help to give our senses more power to perceive. Scientific epistemology is dependent for its data on instruments.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You make it hard for me to quote you.
Have you ever been to a doctor, do you eat food, are you aware we put a man on the moon, do you wear glasses? All these things are science in action.
This is not my opinion, it’s a fact. [/quote]I know that. I LOVE science. LOVE IT. What is it’s foundation? BTW, I’m aware that WE, the United States put a man on the moon and WE read the first chapter of Genesis giving God the glory there minutes after doing so. WE hadn’t quite “progressed” to YOUR level yet. Canada can’t even take carer of it’s own garbage without us. (oops, hijack haven material there)
[quote]silee wrote:<<< Scientific epistemology >>>[/quote]Do tell.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
When people believe things that you don’t you deem them fools because they believe in stupid things “for no good reason”. When people don’t believe the things you do you deem them fools because they are in denial and can’t question there own beliefs. It’s kinda funny, but I’ve noticed before that you agnostic/atheists are often more viscous in your accusations of heresy than the Christians I’ve dealt with - it’s just never compared like that [/quote]
I don’t deem anyone fools based on having religious beliefs.
[/quote]As I said, you would never use that term - but you say they believe in things “for no good reason”, and you say they can’t question there own beliefs. These sound foolish - yes I chose that term, but I’m not in any way twisting what you’ve said (am I?)
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
When you say you’ll believe in God when there is testable scientific proof - in that instant you are taking science as your religious philosophy. [/quote]
My “religious” philosophy is based on reality. See that thing in front of you that you’re typing on? That’s my “religious” philosophy in action.
[/quote]I know that’s your religious philosophy. That’s what I just said - only drop the sarcasm and quotations for a second. Why, in a religious discussion do you feel the need to invoke your idols of modern science against someones belief in God?
Dont you see? I couldn’t call them idols if you didn’t bring them in here. When you insist on bringing them in here - then I couldn’t find a more accurate word for it
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I wasn’t lying when I told you I wasn’t happy with you giving in to the term “faith”. I wanted you to define it. I wanted you to own it. Then you would know that you never really were what you consider an atheist to be [/quote]
Um no, I know I am an atheist. It is you who do not understand what the label agnostic atheist even means.
[/quote]Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. Some of what you write sounds like an agnostic atheist to me - others actually don’t. You only acknowledge that one part of your psyche while other people are actually dealing with at least two. That’s my opinion anyway - I may or may not have found the right words to describe it - but I’m pretty confident that I’m onto something here
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:<<< Scientific epistemology >>>[/quote]Do tell.
[/quote
short answer its just the types of different forms of knowledge that are scientific. For example many philosophers don’t recognize the knowledge produced by the social sciences as any different from the knowledge that philosophy can produce. Some believe that philosophy itself doesn’t produce any knowledge at all. These guys/and gals see the natural sciences, the hard sciences, as the only legitimate form of scientific inquire and knowledge. Epistemology is just the study of knowledge,and what is to count as a form of knowledge.