|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
I like how you shifted the terminology from philosophy to 'observations'. I didn't. You said:
Emperical evidence can only verify that internal consistency is valid frrom a physical point of view. It is no proof on it's own of anything, because our observations of it are themselves philosophical constructs. This means any alleged sensory perception is a philosophical construct & not proof of anything. I could punch you full in the face whilst fully concious & according to you you have no proof that I punched you in the face! Give me your bank account number, I'll empty your account & you will have no proof it was me, despite the funds going from your account to mine.
My 'observations' (internal consistency)) + the bible = equals internal and external consistency. This makes no sense, your observations aren't proof of anything regardless of whether your propositions are consistent or not. Secondly, the bible is only externally consistent with trivial history, none of it's fantastic claims are externally consistent. So all you have is internal consistency. I may as well say, I have my observations & Watership Down, therefore I am both internally & externally consistent. It's meaningless.
Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent. Let's get this straight, you are seriously trying to tell me that something you can not demonstrate exists (because it is a philosophical construct)is externally coherent? How do you know without empirically derived evidence of its content? In order to know the bible exists you need to have had some sensory perception of it, in other words, you have to be an empiricist, but then it becomes internally incoherent, according to you, & therefore invalid. You are hoisted on your own petard. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?
It is being interpreted differently. No, creationists ignore it when it doesn't suit them. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Please answer the questions. 1/ For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to? If not, please state exactly why not, I'm not interested in statements like "very sophisticated philosophers have pulled the wool over your eyes". 2/ Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence. I don't want to "answer that for myself", I want you to define your terms. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
It simply the scientific method It would have saved a lot of time if you'd just argued that your evidence is better than mine without all that red herring nonsense about coherence. So, we are basically having an evidence based discussion, yes? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
But that is precisely why one theory is chosen over another. If there was no coherence, there would be no empericism. But it's neither here nor there. You could have said we were having an evidence based discussion a la the scientific method & the result, when we get to it, would be exactly the same. All you have done is to insist you reword the scientific method without changing it & thereby wasted everybodies time. This is message 160+ & we have yet to begin. We are having an evidence based discussion, yes or no? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Yes. Excellent, please present your evidence that there is a god, then we can ask whether it was caused, or not.
just remember that that evidence is reached by reasoning and inference. No, evidence is reached by observation, conclusions are reached by inference. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
All you have done is present some scientific facts, where's the evidence of god? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
The existence of logic itself that matches our constructs to create total coherence. The emperical world itself! Nope, it could have come about naturally. The existence of "reality" is the thing we are trying to explain, its existence alone tells us nothing about how it came to be. If it tells us nothing then it can't be considered evidence of anything. Again I ask, where is this evidence of god? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Could have doesn't cut it emperically mark. Exactly. Merely stating the existence of logic doesn't mean it was created by god, it could have been created by god, but as you seem to agree, could have doesn't cut it.
It's just the nature of logic mark. It's self affirming. It never came to be, it simply is. Without it, nothing orderly can be. And all of our inferences fall to pieces. 1/ Logic isn't self affirming, it can get it wrong, I've already furnished you with a logically valid argument that is wrong, & an invalid one that is correct. 2/ Logic exists because we made it, it is merely the minimum level of consistency required for propositions to even be considered. If you want to claim that god made logic, then you need evidence.
Everything is dependent upon it... Except you, it seems. Your evidence of god is the baseless assumption that logic always existed ("it never came to be, it simply is"). Let me dispense with the obvious logical flaw here, if logic always existed, then it didn't need to be created & therefore isn't evidence of god. Clearly you meant god created it, but since I can state with equal veracity that it is human made or even that it actually did always exist. In other words, the existence of logic isn't evidence of god. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Logic wasn't created by God. Logic is God. Reality (God) is logical. You have no evidence of this, you just assert it.
I have a friend. His name is reality. He loves His son. The son's name is logic. and logic never lies And like I've said before, logic does lie, logically valid arguments can be wrong, & invalid ones right, so not even another baseless assertion, an assertion contradicted by evidence.
I never said logic was made. I am saying that it is uncaused (ie. not made). I'm saying logic was made, & with as much veracity as you, ie. none, this is why what YOU say isn't evidence. Like you said, "could have" doesn't cut it. Is this it, no evidence of god whatsoever, just vacuous assertions? Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Who said a lie is logical? Not me, I said logic can lie, in contradiction to you saying it couldn't.
Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole? Not necessarily. My great-grandmother lived until she was 93, she smoked cigarettes like a trooper all her life. She lived well beyond the average life expectancy. Smoking is therefore good for you. There you have & internal & external test cohere, it is valid logic, & it is also wrong. Your point? Back on topic, my point is that you have nothing that meets the standard of "matching the external test". This is called evidence, please provide some. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024