|
Author
|
Topic: Omphalism
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 92 of 151 (547468)
02-19-2010 3:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Straggler
02-19-2010 2:49 PM
|
|
Re: Let's Pretend.....
No. But I don't claim to be agnostic towards last Thursdayism. I know the bible is true. But if the universe was created Last Thurday fully formed with your memories, then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between that and what you say you are knowing as true. You would still think that you know its true but you'd be wrong. And there's no way to show otherwise.
As an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility, we are unable to know if it is true or not, but this casts the same agnosticism on your biblical chronology as well. Only if I am agnostic towrds last Thursdayism . But I am not. Don't tar me with your brush. No, even without you being able to admit your agnosticism to Last Thursdayism. You simply cannot know, whether or not you think you can, if the universe was created fully formed Last Thursday or not.
Yes, but Last Thursdayism isn't a random guess, its philisophical proposition. What is the difference in terms of how valid or true the propoistion in question is? Because its a 'it could've been' proposition. It could've been Last Thursday, or Wednesday, or 287 days ago... it doesn't matter when it was. Its the same philisophical proposition that a fully formed universed poofed into existence recently would be indistinguishable between the one we are thinking that we're currently observing.
So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday. How could you show otherwise?
You agree that the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism equates to guessing that a form of omphalistic creation took place. You also agree that this amounts to randomly picking last Thursday as the date of this creation. Yet you consider this guess as a sufficiently reliable to warrant your agnosticism rather than scepticism. No, as an unfalsifyable philisophical proposition we cannot have anything but agnosticism to it because we, quite literally, are unable to know if it is true or not.
Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort. No, I reject it on the empirical evidence to the contrary.
In summary — Your empirical conclusions have no validity, your agnosticism towards last Thurdayism makes no sense and your opposition to biblical omphalism is derived from subjective world view and philosophical bias alone.
Swing!... and a miss.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:49 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 3:55 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 97 of 151 (547861)
02-23-2010 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Straggler
02-19-2010 3:55 PM
|
|
Re: Let's Pretend.....
So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday? Please explain?
How would I distinguish between the/an old universe and one that was created Last Thursday?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 3:55 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 2:06 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 99 of 151 (548265)
02-26-2010 2:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
02-26-2010 2:06 PM
|
|
Re: Let's Pretend.....
So on what basis are you advocating confidence in one and agnosticism towards the other? Yawn. In Message 78, I presented all the explanations I have provided in this thread to answer the above. Here they are again:
In Message 35, I brought up the distinction between TAP and PAP agnosticism:
quote:
Take what Modulus brought up in the other thread:
quote:
Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP.
Forcing Last Thursdayism into being an evidenced conclusion would lead to TAP agnosticism while leaving it as a unfalsifiable philosophical possibility would keep it at PAP agnosticism.
In Message 50 I said what would answer your question above:
quote:
If somebody brought up Omphalism as a philisophical possibility then I would find that to be more dubious than somebody who said they observed some kind of evidence that led them to conclude Omphalism. But since the philisophical possibility is not falsifiable then I'd be stuck at PAP agnosticism, however, the concluded Omphalism could be investigated so I'd have TAP agnosticism.
quote:
Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. Biblical Omphalism as stemming from the Bible, is a claim that I have TAP agnosticism to until we actually look at the evidence and form a better conclusion. Biblical Omphalism, as a response to empirical evidence in a 'it could have been' position, doesn't actually make a claim, but is left as a philisophical possibility and too I would have PAP agnosticism, but I would be doubtful because they are just basing it on a priori conclusions.
Because it seems to me that, your world view aside, my claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago fully formed is just as valid as your empirical conclusion that it is billions of years old. Tell me why it isn't? In Message 39 I wrote:
quote:
If someone says: "It could have been...."
Then my PAP agnosticims goes: yeah, sure, whatever  If someone says: "It was...." Then my TAP agnosticim goes: Oh really, lets look and see
and
quote:
If their response was: "No, it actually happened like...." Then we can examine their evidence and figure out if/where they're wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 2:06 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:13 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
I guess the confusion is coming from my acknowledgment of PAP agnosticism while also doubting the claim. Last Thursdayism? IPU? "I don't know, but I doubt it." Biblical Omphalism? "Falsified."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:13 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:48 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
Last Thursdayism? IPU?
"I don't know, but I doubt it." Good grief CS are you saying that you think these conclusions unlikely to be true? In the sense that they are post-hoc, 'it could have been', rationalizations without evidence, or any reason to think so, and simply left as philosophical possibilities, yes. But not in the sense that I have weighed up the possibilities and determined the likelihood of each and found one to be lower than the other. I don't think we can do that.
Biblical Omphalism? "Falsified." Falsified? But biblical omphalism is as unfalsifiable as Last Thursdayism surely? The empirical evidence is identical in both scenarios. I don't think so. With Biblical Omphalism, we have the addition of 6000 years (minus a few days) of evidence to consider that suggests that the Earth is, in fact, older. Unless the omphalist counters with a 'well, it could have been...' post-hoc rationalization that I would simply doubt for the above reasons.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:48 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 105 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 4:16 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
So you don't think that the empirical conclusion is more likely to be correct than the Last Thursday conclusion? How would I know? How can I tell?
Then in what sense do you "doubt it"? There's no indication of it. Its just a post-hoc rationalization.
So you don't think the IPU is more likely to not exist than to exist? Then in what sense do you "doubt it"? The same. How can I tell if the IPU exists or not? I doubt it because there's no indication of it. Its just a post-hoc rationalization. But more specifically to the IPU, I've seen the websites that introduced it as a parody so I know it was just made-up and does not exist.
I don't think so. With Biblical Omphalism, we have the addition of 6000 years (minus a few days) of evidence to consider that suggests that the Earth is, in fact, older. Only if you assume that Last Thursdayism isn't true. On what basis do you make that assumption?
There's no indication of it. Its just a post-hoc rationalization.
Your claims of doubt, confidence and agnosticism seem contradictory. Expound.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 4:16 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 107 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 4:36 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
Remember I am a biblical omphalist in this discussion. I have faith in the bible. I advocate that my omphalism is as valid as your empiricism. It strikes me that if you cannot tell then your confidence in the empirical conclusion and doubt of Last Thursdayism or biblical omphalism is simply subjective world view and nothing more. You haven't brought forth one piece of evidence suggesting the veracity of Biblical Omphalism that I could refute to show you why the empirical conclusion is better.
That is precisely my point. How can you tell? Bring forth the evidence so I can show you.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? That the only way it can be presented is in an 'it could have been' post-hoc rationalization suggests to me that it is wrong. Show me the data!
And Last Thursdayism doesn't have an identical contextual history? Looks like it does... Last Thurdayism is the same made-up BS that the IPU is, then. Although, I'll acknowledge PAP agnosticism to the both of them, on the principle that we are unable to know because we can't tell.
Why are you agnostic to Last Thursdayism but not agnostic to equally irrefutable notions of the unable to intervene in our universe IPU? Please explain.
I'm not even gonna requote this time... My criteria for determination is here:
Message 99 Message 78
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 4:36 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 109 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 5:09 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
You haven't brought forth one piece of evidence suggesting the veracity of Biblical Omphalism that I could refute to show you why the empirical conclusion is better.
Yes it's frustrating when people advocate agnosticism to something purely on the basis that it is irrefutable regardless of any other considerations.
But you're not advocating agnosticism...
Unless you accept biblical evidence this is an impossible request. The fact that you don't accept biblical evidence is not my problem. I'd consider biblical evidence...
The fact that you claim the validity of empirical evidence whilst claiming not to know whether the entire universe was created last Thursday IS your problem. It is logically unjustifiable. No it isn't. Acknowledging that we would be unable to distinguish from Last Thursdayism says nothing about the validity of empirical evidence.
You misunderstand. I believe in biblical omphalism on faith. My argument is that your empirical claim is no more valid than mine. You show me the data and then tell me why you think it is even valid. Last time I did, in Message 84, you fled from Biblical Omphalism and jumped right to Last Thursdayism. I'll let you start this time.
You seem as agnostic to Last Thusrdaysim and the IPU as that nutjob atheistic Straggler who denies the valid belief in any of these concepts beyond the logically possible. How come? Its different because we know the LT and IPU were made-up. We don't know that about all of "those concepts"
The question here is why are you atheistic towards some of the concepts under discusssion whilst opposing those atheists who denounce all such equally unfalsifiable claims as "unlikley"? Because you don't have any way of determining the likelihood for some of them. Although, I thought I did agree with your rationalization of atheism to some of the concepts because you figured that they were human invention, just not all of them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 5:09 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 113 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2010 7:29 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
In my biblical omphalist mode I am indeed advocating that you should be agnostic towards biblical omphalism. You cannot falsfy it and empiricism, whilst a useful practical tool, is not a path to truth. With omphalism, we have the last 6000 years to see that science works and can figure that its prolly right about the age of the earth too so we can be gnostic about the conclusion.
When everything, including the evidence you cite as showing that Last Thursdayism and biblical omphalism are false, could have been omphamistically created less than 5 minutes ago (5 Minutes AgoIsm) without empirical evidence being able to show us any different then one has to admit that any confidence in empirical conclusions must be faith based. No? And with Last Thursdayism we don't have anything to go on so we're stuck at agnosticism. Any evidence that would be against it is removed by it.
"I doubt it" seems like a statement of relative likelihood to me. Do you not consider the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be true than the Last Thursdayist conclusion? Not rationally, no, but still: yes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2010 7:29 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 6:21 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
So the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is..... What? What the empirical evidence suggests, although it can't show that it wasn't created last thursday.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 6:21 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 1:39 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
Why is the empirical conclusion the rational conclusion if you deem it rationally to be no more likely to be true than the omphalist (Last Thursdayist, Last month-ist, whatever) conclusion? Because you can't use the empirical data to determine the likelyhood of Last Thursdayism even though the data suggests that its older. Its rational to follow the data, but its just not saying anything about whether or not everything was created last thursday.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 1:39 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 125 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 3:07 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
But why is it rational to follow the empirical data? In doing so you are implicitly rejecting the key omphalist claim that the empirical data you are following is deceptive. But you previously said that omphalistic claims could not be rationally discarded as inferior. In Last Thursdayism, the empirical evidence still suggests old age. Its rational to believe it, but you'd just be wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 3:07 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:17 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
So rationally we should have confidence in the empirically evidenced age of the Earth. But simultaneously we cannot rationally consider this conclusion as any more likely to be correct than the omphalist conclusion which specifically states that the empirical evidence is misleading and unreliable. If not, then you'd be able to use the empirical evidence to disprove Last Thursdayism.
So (according to you) we can rationally have confidence in a conclusion whilst simultaneously rationally accepting that this same conclusion is no more likely to be reliable than it is unreliable. Not exactly, we can't show that the empirical conclusion is more reliable than Last Thursdayism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:17 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:56 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
So explain to me why it is you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be the rational conclusion. It follows from sound reasoning from the evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:56 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 2:02 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Let's Pretend.....
It follows from sound reasoning from the evidence.
But omphalism tells us that the evidence in question is misleading. So why do you place empiricism over omphalism when it comes to looking at the evidence and deciding what the rational conclusion is?
Because I've seen that empiricism works and I haven't seen that omphalism does. With omphalism we have the last 10,000 years of scientific advancements suggesting that empiricism is right and omphalism isn't. We've been over this... see Message 78 and Message 104
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 2:02 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 133 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:25 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2