Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know?
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 53 of 88 (163986)
11-29-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
11-29-2004 3:44 PM


Re: Summary
I'm not taking a definite position on whether there are or are not other valid ways of knowing. I'm allowing that there may be others - but any suich claim has to be justified
And how must they be justified if not by rationalism or empiricism? Do you want evidence that faith is valid? Well, then its no longer faith. It's empiricism. Since you undeniably accept certain presuppositions, I've tried to show you that this is essentially faith. This rational argument cannot justify faith either, but if I can show that you have a certain amount of faith then you must consider faith justified enough, right?
And I really don't see how you can suggest that faith is a valid means of knowing.
I thought you just said you were open to other ways of knowing? What other ways are there besides the three I have mentioned?
Surely faith )in this context) is simply strong belief without evidence ? That's not a method of knowing.
It depends on your definition of evidence. Belief with absolutely no outside information whatsoever is just imagination. But in my case at least I am trusting outside information, not something I made up.
And no you haven't presented an argument yet that faith is a vlaid means of knowing. Faith certainly is not the basis for pure logical beleif - nor really is it the basis for empiricism. Empiricism may require the acceptance of basic assumptions but that is NOT because faith is considered valid. In epistmeology such assumptions are a necessary evil - but still an evil.
Am I missing something or isn't faith the acceptance of an assumption to be true without proof? If this is the case then your "evil" assumptions that you admit you make are faith.
If you are jsut daying that sufficiently strong belief - whether the product of knowledge or not will produce the same actions then it is trivial and irrelevant.
It is not trivial and irrelevant since all knowledge is in the head.
We know that fanatics will do all sorts of things for completely false beliefs - Heaven's Gate being an obvious example. Faith is not knowledge.
You cannot prove that a faith is entirely unacceptable because of the nuts in the world.
The essentual difference between our positions is not trust. It is not a willigness to accept somebody else' word. It is not a requirement for direct verification of everything (yet another strawman). It is that you want to pretend that some of your beliefs are knowledge when they are not.
What??? You are just trying to claim a victory here when you have none. Another strawman? When did you point out the first? You say I'm pretending when you can't even give an example of something you KNOW that does not contain an assumption.
And that is why we have all the strawmen and all the evasion. Because really when it comes down to it you knwo that you have no case.
Strawmen and evasion??? If I am doing this then why haven't you addressed this before now? You can't start throwing out names of logical fallacies now just because you want to end the debate with the delusion that you've won.
You're right my case is based on logic and philosophy, both of which contain assumptions. So I have no case. But since we both accept the same assumptions which my case is based on, for all practical purposes my case is strong. You are just too opinionated to get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2004 3:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:35 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:46 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 54 of 88 (163987)
11-29-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Loudmouth
11-29-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Summary
Thanks for your reply
The key to empiricism and rationalism is objectivity, not assumption.
I agree. But to say "I know" about anything, even things discovered by rationalism and empiricism, you must have some underlying assumptions as a framework. Everything can be questioned.
When it comes to faith you are relying on a sample set of one, yourself...Even further, religious experiences can not be shared, and therefore the rationality of the exerperience can never be checked.
It can probably never be checked even if many people claim to witness the exact same supernatural event at the same time, but it is not a fact that you are relying on yourself. You are relying on what someone else tells you.
This is what separates knowledge from belief, the ability to objectively check your findings with others. This is the atheist philosophy (in my opinion, others can argue whether or not it is accurate). An atheist trusts those things which can be objectively tested and verified by others. God and religious experiences do not fall under this heading, since these are personal experiences that can not be compared or shared between people. Religious experiences can be vocalized and illustrated, but the experience can never be shared at the level needed for verification.
That is your philosophy and that's cool. Mine is slightly different. That's all.
If I claimed that a UFO invasion was imminent without a shred of proof, what would you do? Would you become my follower giving your complete faith to my belief, following my commandments to the letter? Why or why not? If you do not believe me, then why should I believe you when you say that God is real?
Well, I'd see what you did. If you acted as though you really believed what you were saying, I would think that you were either nuts or right. Since no one else has said the same thing, I'd probably think you were nuts. If you gave me any commandments that went against my conscience I'd know without a doubt you were wrong or that I wanted no part of your cult. Why is there more reason for you to believe in Christ? That's another topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Loudmouth, posted 11-29-2004 3:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 58 of 88 (164176)
11-30-2004 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
11-30-2004 4:35 AM


Review
Thanks for your reply.
How could other means of knowing be justified ? By showing that they are reliable - that will probably mean showing that they are reliable when they overlap with better verified means of knowing.
Okay, cool. So to verify that faith is a perfectly good means of knowing all I must do is believe my teacher when he tells me Spain is a country and then gather the class and go see Spain for myself. I believed my teacher's words to be true and whadya know! They were. Since I gained knowledge by faith and verified it by empiricism, faith works. I know exactly what you'll say to this, but go ahead and equivocate.
What I am NOT arguing is that every single instance has to be verifiable by other means - and that is where your argument that no test is possible falls down.
I never said that you must personally do it. But what you ARE arguing is that every piece of knowledge must have the potential to be verified by many other people.
Let's review:
EVERYTHING you know enters your head through a personal subjective perception that cannot possibly be verified. You assume every other person sees blue the same way you do, but you cannot verify it because you cannot become that person and see for yourself. In fact special relativity tells us that NO ONE experiences the exact same reality even if we did all have the exact same equipment upstairs.
THEREFORE, EVERYTHING we know stands on some assumptions which we accept by faith to be true.
This means that logic cannot provide us a standard that says, "only knowledge that does not stand on un-verifiable assumptions must true." Since there is no objective standard that defines knowledge, we rely on a practical spectrum of confidence. We can be 100% confident of nothing except that we exist, but this is not practical. We can be 1% confident of everything, but this is not practical. How confident must we be to say we KNOW something? That is up to the individual. Science is an excellent tool for increasing our confidence in certain things to a universally accepted practical level.
In practical daily living we have two levels of confidence that we use. When dealing regularly with other people we accept many things as true that we do not or cannot examine scientifically. When dealing with extraordinary claims or new scientific theories, we pass these things through a much more critical level of confidence in order to accept them as true knowledge. Remember since all of this is based on assumptions in the first place we could very well be dead wrong about all of it, nevertheless, if we are confident enough, we can say, "I know".
Now, saying that God exists is an extraordinary claim. And so you decide to pass this statement through your extremely critical scientific verification process. You are willing to accept this statement as true knowledge only if science can increase your confidence to your chosen level. Since there is no scientific verification available, you reject it as true knowledge.
I am willing to accept this statement as true knowledge without verification in the same way I am willing to accept that you see blue the same way I do without verification.
That's as clear as I can make it. If you can't understand this, then I see no point in arguing further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 3:17 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 12-01-2004 12:21 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 59 of 88 (164178)
11-30-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-30-2004 4:46 AM


Re: List of strawmen
Enough ?
I don't see any straw!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:46 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 60 of 88 (164182)
11-30-2004 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by MrHambre
11-30-2004 10:28 AM


Re: Smoke and Mirrors
Thank you for your reply.
The question remains: if you don't fully understand it, what basis do you have for considering it absolute truth?
By asking "what basis" you are expecting me to provide a rational or empirical argument that can make you %100 confident! I believe in an absolute truth just like I believe you are real and perceive reality in the same way I do. I cannot provide a basis for either of these things being "absolute truth", but I accept them.
When you claimed that if someone 'believes so strongly it's the same as knowing,' I challenged you. People believe all sorts of things, often quite strongly, but that doesn't make the proposition true.
And you are quite obviously right. Even scientists have said, "I know" this or that and been proven wrong later. This is my point! That there is no universally accepted standard for how confident we must be in order to say we know something and because we may set a standard at X confidence does not mean things that fall above that level are true and things that fall below are false. Obviously your standard, at least in this case, is scientific verification. But you do not always use that standard. Assuming you're married, how would your wife feel if you decided to bring in ten observers with equipment to verify the fact that your wife loves you.
Since you accept things as true without passing the scientific standard and since you accept the pressupositions upon which the scientific method is based even though verificiation is impossible, this proves that your determination of what to accept as true knowledge is your subjective decision based on practicality and trust.
We have supported the argument that certain presuppositions are more practical and logically valid than others, so quit claiming that "it's all a matter of faith."
You can argue all you want about which assumptions are more practical and logically valid, but they are still assumptions and it is a matter of choice as to which ones you will accept as true.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 11-30-2004 08:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MrHambre, posted 11-30-2004 10:28 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 64 of 88 (165057)
12-04-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
12-01-2004 3:17 AM


Re: Review
Thanks for your reply.
I understand what you are saying perfectly. It's still wrong.
Are you 100% sure? How do you know? Your statement does not follow logically. You think I'm wrong because I say knowledge is a matter of trust. But YOU are acutally adopting my argument that "knowing" is a matter of trust (or, IOW faith).
We don't simply beleive what anybody says.
Okay, I'm with you so far.
We do accept - as a shortcut - what genuinely qualified people say (and even there we do not always accept it fully).
And you admit that how "genuinely qualified" a person is an subjective estimation that is up to the individual and depends on the situation and the information? You might consider your wife a genuinely qualified person to tell you that she loves you (assuming you're married). You might consider Stephen Hawking a genuinely qualified person to tell you about the nature of black holes. You are demonstrating for me that we choose the one in whom we will place our confidence.
You also say that you may not accept these things fully. Well then, how "fully" must you accept them before they become knowledge? you give no logical standard for this. Again, this is a matter of confidence, trust, and decision.
But that is because thay are passing on knowledge acquired by other means and we have adequate reason to trust them.
I recall you saying in a previous post that trust did not differentiate our positions, and that it is not a matter of accepting someone else's word. Now you are saying that some things that you "know" you have accepted on the basis of another person's trusted word.
Jesus was also "passing on knowledge acquired by other means and we have adequate reason to trust" Him. Of course I know you have a different opinion.
For faith to be a mean of knowing it should be possible to gain knowledge directly by faith - rather than simply accepting knowledge acquired by other means.
Regarding the first part of your statement, consider my example of the student who learns about Spain from his history teacher: the student now has knowledge gained directly by faith because he trusts his teacher. I don't see how you can say that the student does not possess knowledge and that he did not gain it by faith. Regarding the second part of your statement: do not all three forms of learning need external sources of information to be transformed into knowledge? And doesn't all the information enter our heads through the same five senses?
And this raises the question of where the supposed knowledge in religion comes from and whetehr there are genuine qualifications which can ve trusted to indicate posession of this knowledge.
Haha... Where did it come from? Why God of course! I can't think of anyone more genuinely qualified or trustworthy... And there you go again acknowledging that I was right: it is a matter of trust.
Leaving aside your silly claim about special relativity
Okay... we can leave it aside.
And it certainly does NOT involve ignoring other peoples perceptions as you claim (in fact they ARE a useful cross-check and are a very valuable part of empiricism).
I don't believe I ever said we had to ignore anyone's perception, just that we cannot verify that everyone experiences things the same way we do... or that they even exist (unless you are willing to trust your senses and make that assumption; again, a matter of faith).
What YOU don't understand is that the reliance on assumptions - EVEN WITH CROSS-CHECKS is considered a WEAKNESS.
Of course I understand! That's why I brought it up. There is an inherent weakness in your idea of truth and knowledge if you rely strictly on empircal and rational means. The ONLY reason you accept any of it as knowledge is because you accept the assumptions it is all based upon by faith. Which also adds to my point that when something becomes knowledge is a subjective decision not an objective standard or law.
Also, I might point out that all my knowledge about God which forms my worldview is based on only two assumptions: God exists and His Word is Truth. Whereas your worldview seems to be based on more than two assumptions.
The real fact is the OPPOSITE of what you say - the basis of empiricism is a DENIAL that faith is a valid means of knowing.
Gah... stubborn aren't you. The basis of empiricism is observation, not denial of anything. If you accept the assumptions upon which empiricism is based, by what means do you do this if not by faith?
What you are doing is saying, "I KNOW that the house upon the hill is real, but I can't say that I KNOW the hill is real." The hill supports the house; they come together. The hill is the nasty assumptions, and the house is your "knowledge" gained by empiricism. If you say you KNOW something, then you believe your assumptions even if you say you don't. Therefore, you use faith in order to KNOW things. If you did not have any faith in your assumptions, you would not KNOW anything that empiricism has given you.
And then we return to the same old strawman. I've corrected you often enough on this point, so I have to assume that you are simply lying.
Actually, you only mentioned the so-called strawmen once, and then you quoted some lines of mine without showing how they are strawmen.
I don't demand scientific validation of God - I ask for evidence that faith as such is a reliable means of knowing.
This is a nonsensical statement as I have already shown. You are saying empiricism must validate faith (even though I have already shown that to accept empirical knowledge you must believe the assumptions). Furthermore, if a fact is known by empiricism, then it is not known by faith. Therefore, if you attempt to prove the validity of faith by empirically proving a fact known by faith, you are no longer using faith and your efforts are meaningless. You cannot PROVE a system of knowing. You cannot PROVE empiricism. We've already discussed this.
Of course you don't demand scientific validation of God. You don't believe he exists in the first place. And why don't you believe? Because you have no evidence either that faith is valid or that God is real. How am I misrepresenting your position? Eliminating faith leaves only rationalism and empiricism upon which science is based. If you do not acknowledge faith as a means of gaining knowledge, how is this different than saying you must have scientific validation to know God exists? Show me how this is a strawman (you can't just say it is).
That you continually evade this issue by misrepresentign my position simply shows that you know that you can't provide what I actually ask for.
Evade! I've answered your arguments line for line! Misrepresent? I'm starting to think you're only saying these things becuase you know your real position has no ground to stand on. What you ask for does not make sense. No one will think less of you if you simply acknowledge that your definition of knowledge is a subjective decision based on confidence and trust. You've already almost acknowledged this above. So I guess we don't really have much left to argue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 3:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2004 2:47 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 12-04-2004 4:37 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 65 of 88 (165059)
12-04-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Loudmouth
12-01-2004 12:21 PM


Re: Review
Thanks for your reply.
In this case, faith wasn't even necessary.
Faith WAS necessary for the kid to gain knowledge. Sooner or later he must believe someone is telling the truth about Spain for it to become knowledge. Spain is not a law or a phenomenon, it is a name that exists in people's minds that stands for a government owned piece of land.
Another example: During the Cold War a Russian fighter pilot defected and crashed his plane off the coast of Hawaii. He was brought to the U.S. and when they showed him supermarkets full of fresh produce and stores bustling with shoppers, he didn't believe it at first. He thought it was all a propoganda show for him. Why? He didn't trust them. Until he trusted them, he could not know that America was as prosperous as it appeared.
If you removed faith altogether the teacher's statements were still true.
Now you are stating an absolute truth: Spain exists. Well, what if no one believed Spain existed including the people that live there? Would this still be an absolute truth?
If we remove all faith in religion, there is no reason for God to exist unlike Spain in your example.
Now if God is an absolute truth He exists regardless of our faith in Him unlike Spain. So your example is really in reverse (unless you believe Spain's existence to be an absolute truth but not God's).
Knowing that Spain exists is a product of empiricism, not faith.
For the student, KNOWING that Spain existed resulted purely from faith. The student did not participate in any kind of empirical observation. He accepted the teacher's words as truth and assimilated them into his realm of knowledge. How can you say the student did not gain knowledge by faith? Here, unlike the previous example, we are not speaking of humanity as whole, but rather one person's obtaining knowledge.
True, it is left to the individual, but this doesn't mean that certain realms of knowledge are more inherently "true" than others.
I'm glad we agree on this.
As you said earlier, "If you removed faith altogether the teacher's statements were still true." The same can apply with God. Just because you don't have faith in God does not make him any less "true" than any other truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 12-01-2004 12:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 66 of 88 (165061)
12-04-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peeper
12-01-2004 10:14 PM


I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that a personal revelation from God is just a "mere feeling"?
I get feelings all the time. For some of them, well, for many of them, it would be unwise for me to go along with them. Therefore, I do not consider feelings to be personal revelation from God.
As per the topic, when do "mere feelings" become actual knowledge?
I'd say never unless you are talking about the sense of touch. Feelings usually result from the knowledge of something, not vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peeper, posted 12-01-2004 10:14 PM Peeper has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 68 of 88 (165149)
12-04-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
12-04-2004 2:47 AM


Re: Review
It looks like we've taken this argument about as far as it will go. It was a good debate and I thank you for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2004 2:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2004 8:32 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 71 of 88 (165681)
12-06-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by lfen
12-04-2004 4:37 PM


Re: Spin off a new thread on "What is knowing?"
Hi Ifen,
I probably won't be able to participate in another good debate for the next week and a half as it is now the week before finals and I have a ba-million things to do. But perhaps a few days from now I could add to such a thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 12-04-2004 4:37 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lfen, posted 12-06-2004 3:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 72 of 88 (165682)
12-06-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
12-05-2004 8:32 AM


You have the last word, but I couldn't let you get away with these ridiculous false spin victory statements.
Nevertheless we have established that there is no argument that faith is a valid way of knowing.
Nope... we haven't...
In every example used there are relevant facts that are the true basis for confidence in the belief in question.
...And I've shown how this is irrelevant... And how the level of confidence needed to "know" something is a choice determined by the individual...
Faith itself is hopelessly unreliable - something you are clearly well aware of.
...I can speak for myself... And I clearly never said this...
Anyway... have a good'un

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2004 8:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 3:49 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 76 of 88 (166515)
12-09-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by lfen
12-04-2004 4:37 PM


Re: Spin off a new thread on "What is knowing?"
Hi Ifen,
I got almost all of my Ba-million papers done and so now all I have to worry about are my exams next week... So I'll have some time now to talk about that topic of what knowing is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 12-04-2004 4:37 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 12:26 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 77 of 88 (166534)
12-09-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Taqless
12-07-2004 12:32 PM


Re: Awaiting the completion of your finals
Hi Tagless, thanks for your reply.
Since ALL knowledge is based on certain presuppostions, to know anything one must believe in SOMETHING.
I think I agree.
Good!
However, would you then be willing to say that the same way you know gravity is the same way you know god?
I suppose in one way I could say I know them both the same way. I can neither see nor hear nor feel either one, but I can see and hear and feel the effects of both. Neither can I fully explain how either one works or why either one exists, nevertheless I believe both exist. You can say you don't believe God exists the same way I can say I don't believe gravity exists, but rather is the result of quantum computer simulation run by a bunch of life forms not yet discovered. The only reason we assume that gravity is as boring and simple as it appears to us to be is because in science we choose the simpler solution. Of course in real life the simpler solution is not neccessarily the correct one.
But I know what you are getting at. We have no scientific evidence that would indicate gravity has a personality, but we do have scientific evidence to indicate this thing called gravity exists. We have no scientific evidence to indicate that in the infinite realm of possibilities outside our universe that an omnipotent benevolent personality is the true reality. Therefore I cannot perform any tests to verify God's existence like I can with gravity. All I have to go on is the words of a few folks throughout history and in my life today and the conscience in my heart. And in those things I am willing to trust as much or more than my five senses.
Which includes theists by default as a portion of the "significant number".
...right. What point does that make?
However, the "fact" is that theists are not using consistant "presuppositions" to reason and understand the two worlds....
I completely agree. I think the most important presupposition a Bible thumping theist must make after the first two is that he doesn't fully understand what he's thumping. That would certainly end a lot of disputes among Christian theists...
what are theists perceiving differently than atheists that leads them to the conclusion that both ARE real while using different "presuppositions"?
I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyways. Well, many do genuinely percieve things that others don't (angels, demons, the voice of God), and some are just willing to listen to the voice inside them that recognizes the complete goodness and righteousness of Christ when they read the gospels and believe. I mean, heck, even if you don't believe Christ was God, who can not be moved by the awesome example he set for right living?
Though the atheist has decided that he KNOWS only what is scientifically verifiable, this does not mean aspects of reality that are not scientifically verifiable do not exist.
Wait a second, once again you are posing as though the same presuppositions that define this world are somehow strictly limited to atheists....I think theists define this world using the exact same presuppositions....
I didn't say the presuppositions were limited to atheists, I said the atheists limit themselves to those presuppositions.
What lie are you talking about? Are you saying you know something about the reality that is not scientifically verifiable? If so, my apologies to you, and please tell me what you know. If not, then my statement stands.
Appealing to something that cannot be tested or information gathered from puts it out of reach to both atheists and theists.
Well nevermind then, you just affirmed my statement that you previously called a lie.
Based on another thread, I forget the title, using your current rationale you would be required to entertain the likelihood of leprechauns....there is no way that either theists OR atheists can prove/disprove them.
Why would I be REQUIRED to believe in Leprechauns? My current rationale as you call it is to believe in something when my confidence can be raised to sufficient level. I have more information and more testimonies about God, Christ, angels, and demons than I do about Leprechauns. In fact, I've never heard anyone seriously speak of an encounter with a Leprechaun. Finally, a Leprechaun is a mischievous creature with magial powers. Sounds like a demon to me. The idea of demons have been around for a long time. There are a couple of threads going on right now discussing encounters with these things. I would assume that the idea of a Leprechaun originated with similar encounters. So if we assume that a Leprechuan is just an Irish demon, then yes I believe in leprechauns. Haha...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Taqless, posted 12-07-2004 12:32 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taqless, posted 12-09-2004 5:25 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 81 by lfen, posted 12-11-2004 4:12 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 80 of 88 (166997)
12-10-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taqless
12-09-2004 5:25 PM


Re: Awaiting the completion of your finals
Cool avatar, btw.
Thanks
This is the theist's, imnsho, mistake...trying to mix realities.
Isn't there only ONE reality? There may be vast parts of the reality that we do not know, but that doesn't make one part that we know more real or separate from the part that we don't know.
While I concede (how grand of me, eh?) that atheists cannot prove a god does not exist based on their reality and presuppositions by the same token theists cannot prove a god exists using strictly their own reality and presuppositions.
Proof is completely left out of the theist's knowledge of God. It is all about trust in the words of another, not trust in the empirical discoveries of another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taqless, posted 12-09-2004 5:25 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 12-11-2004 4:20 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 83 by Taqless, posted 12-14-2004 6:01 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 84 of 88 (169631)
12-17-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by lfen
12-11-2004 4:20 AM


Re: ONE reality?
Thanks for your reply. Sorry for my late one.
But wouldn't it be true to say that the reality of many people is a series of illusions, day dreams, fantasies? So it that sense fantasy is the reality for many.
I don't know, but this is a very good question. It is a true/false question about true reality... hmm... We have decided to use subjective experience to determine what is real. If one and only one person experiences something, than can we say it is real? If no one experiences the universe, then is the universe real? If reality is only a subjective experience, must there be One who is experiencing so that all reality is 'realized' or made truth? I think this question is equivalent to asking where does truth come from if it exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 12-11-2004 4:20 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by lfen, posted 12-18-2004 5:17 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024