|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Wait just a minute mark. I was denying that empericism was valid on it's own. Your trick question was this.
mark24: So your observation of the bible is not evidence it exists? Now you could have just as easily said, 'any book' or 'a rock', or 'a glass of water'. It so happens you used the 'the bible'. That was the context of my answer. So I have put in 'a glass of water' in place of 'the bible' to illustrate. Rob: My answer to your question above: Not in and of itself no. My 'observations' (internal consistency)) + 'a glass of water' = internal and external consistency. Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid because it immediately becomes internally incoherent. If there is a glass of orange juice, and my perceptions say it's a glass of water, then there is no overall consistency. Now here is the problem; the key is in knowing what it actually is. And that is dependant upon the authority of our observations. if our internal perceptions are illogical, then we cannot know what it is. We must assume logic to actually reflect the natural world. When the two agree we have 'the emperical'. They agree on logical grounds. Our perceptions match the product. As sidelined said, our perceptions must conform to the reality. We cannot change what it is. I cannot believe you disagree with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
If there is a glass of orange juice, and my perceptions say it's a glass of water, then there is no overall consistency. Yeah, but you said that empiricism immediately becomes internally coherant. Getting information via your senses is empiricism, so your senses telling you anything is internally incoherent. It doesn't matter whether you are holding a bible or a glass of water, you just can't tell, it's incoherent logic acording to you. Like I said, you are hoist by your own petard. As far as you are concerned, the notion that the bible exists is internally incoherent & your argument vanishes in a puff of your own illogic. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: If there is a glass of orange juice, and my perceptions say it's a glass of water, then there is no overall consistency. mark24: Yeah, but you said that empiricism immediately becomes internally coherant. No I didn't. You misread me. We have to slow down. This is critical thinking, so it's easy to miss a step. It's no big deal... You quoted me in your own reply here: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? I said: Empericism (external coherence) apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid because it immediately becomes internally incoherent. And my statement is simply stating the obvious (which is the hardest thing to see sometimes). If you remove internal coherence, you will no longer have internal coherence. mark24: It doesn't matter whether you are holding a bible or a glass of water, you just can't tell, it's incoherent logic acording to you. Wrong! You can tell only because you have an internal pattern (assuming it is internally coherent) that correctly matches the external pattern you hold in your hand. Both the item and your own bias are internally consistent. We must meld the two. Then and only then... do we have true empericism ie. tested fact. The external natural and physical cannot speak. Only the logical pattern can. And that is what we use to interact and ultimately 'view' with. So the only actaul revelation comes in the form of the logic (or logos / the word). And that of course is assuming that the physical world is logical (and it is as far as we can tell), and that therfore logic is a valid tool to use. As Paul Davies said, that is a theological position. Sorry mark24, but that's what it is. Now... what happens if you have an internally coherent pattern, and an externally coherent pattern (and let's face it... the external world is assumed (because of our own philosophical assumptions) to always be coherent even though we cannot ultimately tell for lack of technology and information) but the two do not meld into agreement? We no longer have empericism... we have theory and theology. mark24: Like I said, you are hoist by your own petard. Don't hang me yet... mark24: As far as you are concerned, the notion that the bible exists is internally incoherent & your argument vanishes in a puff of your own illogic. That's not what I said mark... who's hanging who here? I never said that because I can hold the Bible in my hand that such evidence is internally incoherent. I said, that without my own internal pattern that agrees btw... that I have a book (and the whole book concept and all). So the agreement of the two is sufficient evidence to believe that I know what a book is, that it is real, and I hold it in my hand. You an anglagard are totally jumping the gun here. You're far too eager to entrap me and help me hang myself, and therefore do not here a word I am saying. Your internal bias, does not match the external pattern. ie. you are in error. I've been wrong too (a whole bunch of times) so it's no big deal. I certainly wouldn't say you're hanging yourself. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Sidelined:
Philosophers suppose while scientists test and that is an enormous distinction. And testing is supposed to be valid (a philsophical premise). You keep missing that part. Beyond expanding on what I just said, the rest of your post is essentially answered here: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
I never said that because I can hold the Bible in my hand that such evidence is internally incoherent. Yes you did.
Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent. You empirically have evidence that you are holding a bible in your hand, you can feel it & touch it. This is empiricism. According to your first statement above, empiricism is immediately internally invalid. The only way you know you are holding a bible is empirically. So you did say holding a bible is internally incoherent, you just didn't realise the corollory of your own statements. But since you admit:
and let's face it... the external world is assumed (because of our own philosophical assumptions) to always be coherent even though we cannot ultimately tell for lack of technology and information) As far as you are concerned the bible is as assumed as the rest of the world because of your philosophical assumptions. Any attempt to empirically have evidence of the bible is immediately internally incoherant. Empiricism is internally coherant or it isn't. You say it isn't, so any attempt to make statements about the world via your own senses is internally incoherent. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
And testing is supposed to be valid (a philsophical premise). Testing is not supposed to be valid,it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: I never said that because I can hold the Bible in my hand that such evidence is internally incoherent. mark24: Yes you did. {Rob: Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.} You empirically have evidence that you are holding a bible in your hand, you can feel it & touch it. This is empiricism. And it matches the philsophical construct internally. When I said, 'invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.', meant as a new and combined whole formula. To know emperically that I have abook in my hand, takes both an understanding of the concept, plus the physical thing itself, and their agreement. Only then can I know that books exists, and that it is indeed a book. It wouldn't do any good scientifically to know that 'something exists'! That is the minimal philosophical understanding we can have. My 14 month old daughter knows that something exists, but she doesn't emperically believe in much. It's mostly a mystery to her... mark24: Empiricism is internally coherant or it isn't. You say it isn't, so any attempt to make statements about the world via your own senses is internally incoherent. I thought we were on the same page... I have not explained myself well enough? Let's try again... The natural world is assumed to be coherent, but it is external to our biases. Our philosophical constructs are assumed to be neither unless... when we add the external world, to our perceptions of reality, and they agree... then we have the emperical. As far as we know, our logical inferences are valid when the two, internal coherence (our philosophical construct) + external coherence (the actual construct) + their matched agreement = emperical fact. Any belief to the contrary is strictly unemperical. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
sidelined:
Testing is not supposed to be valid, it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference. Tested with what sidelined? The only test that ultimately applies is the law of non contradiction. We must have a coherent philosophical construct of the actual entity being observed, and add that to the pattern of the actual entity. When there is a match and agreement between the two, we then have 'total coherence' and a system. It then becomes 'emperical' fact. If there is incoherence of the total system, then our philosophical bias must be assumed to be (at least) partially false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
I thought we were on the same page... I have not explained myself well enough? No, as far as I'm concerned you are talking bollocks. Really. None of it makes sense.
When I said, 'invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.', meant as a new and combined whole formula. What does this mean?
The natural world is assumed to be coherent What does this mean?
when we add the external world, to our perceptions of reality, and they agree... then we have the emperical. No, we don't. Empirical is data derived via our senses, regardless of whether they agree with our internal coherence, whatever that is, or not. If the latter disagrees with the former, then the former wins, your internal coherence, whatever that is, is wrong.
My 14 month old daughter knows that something exists, but she doesn't emperically believe in much. All your daughter knows about the world is empirically derived evidence. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
sidelined writes:
Likewise, I could say: 'Faith is not demonstrated to be valid - it is faithfully believed to be valid.' Testing is not supposed to be valid,it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference. I don't think you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps like that. Seems a little like 'begging the question' to me. We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mark24:
Empirical is data derived via our senses, regardless of whether they agree with our internal coherence, whatever that is, or not. No wonder you can't understand what I am saying. Your using a different definition. I hadn't bothered to look it up myself until now. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=empirical
em·pir·i·cal Pronunciation: -i-k&l Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/ Function: adjective 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment 4 : of or relating to empiricism Well, now I see your point. I am afraid that this is one of those rare occasions when we're both right. You're using definition 1.And I am using definition 2. So who will be the impartial and objective judge between us? Since the 4th def. is 'of or relating to empericism', let's look at that one; and in particular, the 2nd of the 3 definitions for 'empericism' which is the closest to your context (the natural sciences). Empiricism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 a : the practice of relying on 'observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically So in terms of natural science, 'the emperical' is arrived at (as I said) by coherence between observation and experiment. As I explained to 'Sidelined', the test (experiment) is ultimately one of coherence. It seeks to find out if we have agreement between the parties being tested? If we only saw with our eyes, what would we say about it? The fact is, two people often see the same thing, and come to different conclusions or theories about what it is... The most coherent theory wins, because logic is the only impartial and objective judge, and is the primary foundational assumption for 'science' to begin with. To be scientific is ultimately to be logical (at least that is what the definition should be). Your eyes are a tool for your mind with which to interpret reality. The cannot interpret it for you. You must think...
"...Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. (C.S. Lewis 'Miracles', chap 3 'The cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism' pgs 21, 22) It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained eveything else in the whole universe but which made it imposssible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed it's own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such thing as proofs- which is nonsense." The only proof of anything is ultimately 'logical coherence' surrounding the observation of the entity. Fortunately, we have a physical universe with which to use as mirror to test our hypotheses. But the physical universe cannot speak other than of it's imminently logical and elegant structure. For we have no other means of engaging it. You forget that you are yourself a part of the structure. Therefore you cannot rely only upon your experience within it to verify objectively where you are. You're in a prejudicial position by definition. You must get outside of the box and test your assumptions. Now Emannuel Kant said this was not possible... but how can he know without having gone outside to see? It is an inevitable difficulty, and lewis captures it with straightforward grace. My apologies if I am not so agile as he... We cannot trust our senses if they leave us in a position of logical incoherence. The physical world proves itself to be logical. We expect ourselves (and especially others) to be logical. Which brings me to a fascinating quote. Pay close attention to the bold section.
"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data, for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Watson D.M.S. / Adaptation, Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929, pp.231-234) Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
[Evolution is] universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
That's right, Rob. Even in 1929, they knew that creationism made no sense. Fortunately for us, 78 years later, we have mountains more evidence, especially from genetics, showing evolution to be true. What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Well it appears I misunderstood you?
Or, your a genius?
That's right, Rob. Even in 1929, they knew that creationism made no sense.
Lot's of evidence + wrong philosophy = incoherence. Evidence cannot prove it's own validity. You need a good (or bad) Lawyer to take it, and paint a picture for the jury. Fortunately for us, 78 years later, we have mountains more evidence, especially from genetics, showing evolution to be true. As an aside... did you see this article on artificial life? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_on_sc/artificial_life There is a very interesting excerpt that is close to my heart. And I know it is close to molbiogirl's, nosy's, Matt P's, and Percy's heart too.
Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life: ” A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply. ” A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes. ” A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy. I have a friend. His name is reality. And He loves His Son logic. And logic never lies... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence.
Lot's of evidence + wrong philosophy = incoherence. No evidence & wrong philosophy = incoherence in creationisms case.
And logic never lies... I gave examples where it did, ergo, your own internal philosophy is incoherent. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Informative subtitles serve to catch the attention of visitors and members alike.
Please try to use subtitles that reflect what is being addressed in the post. Thank you
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024