Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
65 online now:
PaulK, Phat (2 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing The Christian Apologists
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 51 of 853 (865639)
10-28-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
10-28-2019 3:39 PM


Re: Testing Whom? Testing What?
Thugpreacha writes:

There are certain world-changing moments in people's lives that they never forget. Being at the scene of 9-11 or even watching it on TV could be said to be one of such moments.

I think you need to spend a bit more time on how memory works.

Although most will remember "two planes took out the twin towers"... everything after that is pretty much up for grabs.
Some will remember near perfectly.
Others will get things mostly wrong.
Most will be hit-and-miss for this-and-that.

Take a look at this:

quote:
The Mind, Explained - Episode 1

It begins with a woman named Melanie Mignucci detailing her memories of 9/11. She describes her panicked phone call with her mother, who worked in New York City at the time. Mignucci recalled how smoke from the towers circled outside her classroom window. She continues telling her story from that day, unaware that nothing she knew about her memory was true.

The “memory” this day never occurred — it had simply been altered over time, leaving her able to recall something that never happened. After a few more similar stories, the viewer is left in a state of skepticism after realizing memories aren’t necessarily reliable most of what people think they know isn’t completely true. The idea of this unreliability was unsettling, as these are how people remember their entire lives.



This entire first episode (about 20 minutes) is available free on YouTube, I think, if you're interested.

From what I can remember [ ], the lady learns that her mother was not in the City "at the time" and it's impossible for her to see the smoke outside her classroom window - the school is geographically too far away to even see any smoke, let alone have it circling her school... and the wind was blowing in the opposite direction that day anyway. No smoke from the towers ever got closer to her school - it got further away.

That's how memory works - people think it's accurate, but it's not.
That's why we don't rely on memory when something's important. Do you not record important dates/meetings to remember on a calendar? Why would you ever need to do such a thing if your memory was accurate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 10-28-2019 3:39 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 72 of 853 (865749)
10-30-2019 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
10-29-2019 3:32 PM


Re: Mark Mittelberg
Thugpreacha writes:

In response to atheists who simply say they lack a belief in God and that the onus is on the believers to support the argument, he challenges by asking them to give their explanation (as far as they believe) as to how the universe came about.

First - there are plenty of non-God explanations for the origin of the universe that don't involve God.
And most of them have more evidence behind them then God does.

Second - that doesn't even matter. Let's just take the worst case "atheist scenario" here that the atheist's only answer is "I don't know how the universe came about."
Why do you think this supports a God-answer in any way?

How would this imply that believer doesn't need to support their argument that God created the universe?

Think of a non-God, general situation:

We have a problem.
There are two men trying to figure it out.

First man: "I don't know what to do."
Second man: "I know what to do - we should all respect my country's president and then everything will be better."
First man: "How will that help?"
Second man: "We just need to do it."
First man: "But the problem is here - what is your country's president going to do about it?"
Second man: "If your answer is 'I don't know' - then obviously we need to respect my country's president."

What you're saying is that the second man doesn't need to support his argument because the first man's answer is "I don't know?"
How does this make sense?
Everyone should ignore the problem and start respecting this guy's president just because he said so, with no evidence at all that the president of another country is going to help or provide an answer in any way?

The basic premise is that the one providing a claim ("we need to respect my country's president and then everything will be better...") needs to support it.
It's obvious that anyone else saying "I don't know what to do" adds 0 amount of credibility to the unsupported claim that's been made.
It's obvious that any other unsupported claim, say "Do 300 jumping jacks a day! That will solve all problems everywhere!!" has just as much support as respecting the other fellow's president.

So - what would you do?
Support the other country's president just because some fool spouted a few words?
Start doing jumping jacks until the problem goes away?
Or continue to look for a solution that actually has some evidence to support it in helping to fix the problem and ignore all the crazy weirdos?

Apply this procedure to your statement:

quote:
In response to atheists who simply say they lack a belief in God and that the onus is on the believers to support the argument, he challenges by asking them to give their explanation (as far as they believe) as to how the universe came about.

Then review this:

Thugpreacha writes:

Turek has some valid arguments.

Does he, though?

Because if this is your best example - then he clearly does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 10-29-2019 3:32 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 12:48 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 73 of 853 (865750)
10-30-2019 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
10-29-2019 4:17 PM


Re: Mark Mittelberg
Thugpreacha's Apologist writes:

If atheistic materialism is true, it seems to me that reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true(including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can’t evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don’t reason, they react.

Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true.
But no one promotes that they do such a thing.

People promote that mental processes evaluate whether or not a theory is true.
And mental processes are quite capable of doing such a thing.
No God required.

Chemicals don't reason, they react - true.
Mental processes don't reason, they react - false.

Did you think about this at all?

For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true(including the theory of materialism)

This doesn't make sense.
Why can't a mental process, made of "nothing but chemical reactions in the brain" do more than a simple chemical reaction on it's own?

Why can't a mountain of snow, made of "nothing but snow flakes on a mountain" do more than a simple snow flake on it's own?
Wait - we can hold the Winter Olympics on a snow-covered mountain, but we cannot hold the Winter Olympics on a single snow flake.

This idea that a group of things cannot be anything more than what a single aspect is capable of is ridiculous to the point of stupidity?

Not only is reason impossible in an atheistic world...

Just as building houses is impossible in a world that has single 2'x4's?
Just as using roads is impossible in a world that has bits of asphalt?
Just as flying over seas is impossible in a world with sheet metal?
Just as talking to our friends and family is impossible in a world where sounds make single notes?
Just as showering every morning is impossible in a world with drops of water?

Seriously... the idea is so laughably preposterous I can't believe you're suggesting that anyone take it seriously.

So I have two questions for atheists: 1)What is the source of this immaterial reality known as reason that we are all presupposing, utilizing in our discussions, and accusing one other of violating on occasion?; and 2) If there is no God and we are nothing but chemicals, why should we trust anything we think, including the thought that there is no God?

1 - The source or reason is our ability to look at evidence and make judgments due to the chemical processes in our brains.
-The fact that your Apologist says this is impossible is immaterial to it actually being possible - especially when we all do it everyday, without God.

2 - We should trust some of the things we think, including the thought that there is no God, because trusting things that are supported with evidence is our best-known-method to knowing things about the world. It's what took us out of the Dark Ages and allowed us to flourish in this Information Age.
-We should trust it because it works - all without God.
-If you want to say it works better with God, I'm all ears - but I'm going to need more than your say-so, and your apologists' saying-so-that-goes-against-what-we-see-in-reality. I'm personally incredibly interested in any method that would be better - why wouldn't anyone?

Thugpreach writes:

I like that bit about chemicals.

Me too.
Mind-bending, when you think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 10-29-2019 4:17 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 11:40 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 76 of 853 (865763)
10-30-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by GDR
10-30-2019 11:40 AM


Re: Mark Mittelberg
GDR writes:

People promote that mental processes evaluate whether or not a theory is true.
And mental processes are quite capable of doing such a thing.

I'm glad we agree on this point.

God, as in an intelligent creator, was required to make mental processes possible.
It is all belief.

This is your belief - it is only based on belief, and it goes against what evidence we have. You are free to have your belief.
In fact, I hope you hold onto this belief and expand our human knowledge in this area if/when you're able to obtain evidence.

However, God not being required to make mental processes possible is based on the available evidence - not belief.
We can look inside the brain - we don't see God.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - we don't see God.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - we don't see God.

This is the available evidence so far.

Perhaps GDR (or someone claiming "it is all belief" as GDR does) will one day find some evidence that supports that position.
On that day - the available evidence will be in your favour.

But today, all of the available evidence shows us that mental processes work without God.
So today - the available evidence is that no God is required.

That is not belief.
Therefore - it is not "all" belief.

To believe that my conclusion is absolutely true for all time, especially the unknown future - that would be belief.
But to hold this as a confident, tentative conclusion based upon the available evidence - that would not be belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 11:40 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 4:26 PM Stile has responded
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 4:50 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 77 of 853 (865767)
10-30-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
10-30-2019 12:48 PM


Re: Turek & Hitch
Thugpreacha writes:

He is quite good, though...

What do you mean by this? That he sounds convincing to you?
That doesn't make him "quite good."
That makes him "quite nice for Thugpreacha to listen to and receive consoling feelings from."

Although I wish for you to be happy, if we're wondering about how to identify reality - I'm not overly concerned on if Thugpreacha is feeling comfortable or not... I'm more concerned with how reality actually is.

In the sense of describing reality, Turek appears to be "terrible." As shown by my above post dismantling the argument of his you chose to describe here.

based on listening to some of his podcasts. (which few if any of you will bother to do)

Why would I listen to his podcasts?
You chose to describe an argument that you though was "good."
That argument is clearly quite terrible at describing reality.

Again, the argument may very well be "good" for making Thugpreacha feel comfortable.
But I'm not interested in watching a podcast so that Thugpreacha can feel comfortable - although I do want you to feel comfortable: that sounds like a waste of time to achieve that goal.
I am interested in describing reality - something that Turek implies he's doing. But all indications show that Turek is quite terrible at this, and it would be a waste of time to further investigate. My curiosity in describing reality would be much more satiated in watching a cat video on YouTube - at least it would be a real cat responding to real environmental conditions.

I respected Dr.Turek for a comment he made about Christopher Hitchens shortly after the man's passing:

I do not.
In fact, it seems extremely rude of Dr. Turek to try and use such an emotional event to sway subscribers in another reality-ignoring claim about reality.

Dr. Turek writes:

I don’t see how anyone who knew Christopher Hitchens could think that a man with such admirable qualities and talents was nothing more than a collection of chemicals– the product of unintelligent processes.

Why? Did he think about it all?
Think of it this way: Let's say God exists and is super powerful and can create anything at all.
God creates humans.
That's good, mind you, I'm quite pleased. But impressive? Amazing that he made a human with admirable qualities? Not really - God can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to make some good humans?

Now, let's say God doesn't exist and we have a mindless world full of mindless processes doing uncontrolled things. By way of evolution, these things slowly develop consciousness and actually gain the ability to have admirable qualities due to their environment and social aspects and eventually make Christopher Hitchens - a man of many admirable qualities. Now THAT is impressive.

Christopher’s intellect, wit, courage, passion, and immense personal charm are evidence to me of a Divine Being– a Divine Being who loves human freedom so much that He would even allow the gifts He bestows to be used against Him.

Yeah - we know that Turek believes a lot of things that are contrary to the evidence. This comes as to no surprise. Perhaps Turek should keep this information-everyone-already-knows-about-Turek to himself for a few moments while Christopher Hitchens' family and friends attempt to focus on Christopher Hitchens for a few days due to his death.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 12:48 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 84 of 853 (865813)
10-31-2019 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by GDR
10-30-2019 4:26 PM


Re: It's all belief
GDR writes:

But there is evidence all around us. The fact that mental processes exist is evidence. We can perceive beauty, we are capable of love, empathy, joy, sorrow, hate etc. It is all evidence.

That is not evidence that God created such things.
That is evidence that such things exist.

The next question is: How were they created?
Is there any evidence that God did the creating? - The answer to this is "no." As we've looked into such things and never seen anything that would indicate God's presence, only the same regular physics we see in all other things.
Is there any evidence that God was not involved in the creating? - The answer to this is "yes." For the same reason as above.

However we can look at the evidence of all that life is and choose to believe that they have an intelligent root or believe that it has all come about through a series of random processes and chance.

That's right.
You can choose to believe in spite of the current evidence, or choose to move in it's direction.
You can (rightly) say that we do not have all the evidence - there are aspects to life we have yet to understand.
But this doesn't make all the aspects we do understand (where no God is involved) disappear.
And this also don't lend any credibility to one day "finding God" in those yet-to-be-understood areas.
If anything, the pattern shows that it's likely we'll continue to "not find God" the more we learn - as that's what's happened every time we learn something new so far.

I look at all of those things and see God in it. That is my belief and yours, (if I may be so bold), is that those exist without an intelligent first cause.

Your observation is based upon belief.
Mine is based on the facts.

Here's one fact I can say where we've looked for God and none is found:
We know chemical reactions happen in the brain.
We can investigate many of those chemical reactions.
We can replicate those chemical reactions in a lab.
No God is found in those chemical reactions when replicated or studied or understood.

Can you name one fact that leads us to evidence showing God is present?
My claim is that you cannot - it will always end up being your feelings on the matter, your sense that such a thing "simply cannot possibly be" without God - but no actual, factual evidence.

What you call "evidence of God" is simply your feelings.
Feelings are not evidence.
Evidence is facts that cannot be interpreted in various ways according to facts.

Like chemical processes being replicated in the lab occurring without God.
You cannot "interpret" this another way according to the facts. - This is evidence.
You can only "interpret" it another way according to your feelings. - This is not evidence.

But, you can show me to be wrong.

If you think you actually have evidence, all you have to do is provide a single fact that cannot be "interpreted according to the facts" away from God being involved.
If the only way I can "interpret" it another way is according to my own feelings/beliefs... then you will actually have evidence and I will be wrong.

Without that, my current argument stands - according to the evidence.

The question is whether or not the mental processes exist, (with or without interference), as a result of God or any intelligent first cause for that matter.

Right.
I'm not saying that such a thing is fully understood. (I really don't know - maybe it is? I'm simply not aware.)
I'm saying the following 3 things:

  1. I'm saying that there are parts of "the first cause" that provide factual evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way as to show, at a minimum, that there are parts of this "first cause" that do not include God. Like some of the chemical reactions.

  2. I'm also saying that you are unable to produce any parts of "the first cause" that provide factual evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way as to show, at a minimum, that there are parts of this "first cause" that do include God. None at all.

  3. I'm also saying that there are parts of "the first cause" that we do not understand yet.
    -These parts do not lend any more credence to "God must be involved, then" then they do to "God is not involved, then."

#1 provides "some evidence" for God not being involved.
#2 claims that there is "no evidence" for God being involved (you are free to dispute this, if you can, you just have to use facts.)
#3 is no help to either side.

Again, we both hold to our beliefs.

You only have #2 - you only have beliefs.
I have #1 - it may not be a final conclusion as there are parts we still don't understand. But it is above "none" as #2 contains, and therefore is more than "just belief." It contains evidence.

Your belief is that there is no god. That is a forever belief.

That is not my belief, actually.
But I'm not talking about my belief here - I'm talking about what the evidence shows.
My belief (just like yours) is unable to change what the evidence says. That's why it's called "evidence" and not "something GDR or Stile wishes were true."

If no intelligent creator exists now, then he won't exist in the future either.

Why not?
Why couldn't an intelligent creator come to be and create another universe completely separate from our current one? One with different rules, different inhabitants, and (hopefully) a different moral system that prevents heinous evil?

Therefore to hold that as true now makes it belief.

I do not "hold" anything as true. Everything I think is true is tentatively understood. If I got evidence my parents weren't my parents tomorrow - I would accept it. I wouldn't stop loving "those who raised me as my parents" any less - but evidence is evidence. If you can provide any evidence of God, not only would I accept it, I would celebrate it. It would be amazing.

If there is sufficient evidence in the future to cause you to change your mind then it is simply that you have changed your beliefs.

That's not true. I am capable of separating ideas in my mind.
I am capable of understanding "what I believe" and also "what the evidence says."
The two do not always align for me.
I just also understand that when these do not align, I am not able to "force" the evidence to say something to match my belief just because I want it to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 4:26 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 85 of 853 (865815)
10-31-2019 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phat
10-30-2019 4:50 PM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Thugpreacha writes:

Stile writes:

Think of it this way: Let's say God exists and is super powerful and can create anything at all.
God creates humans.
That's good, mind you, I'm quite pleased. But impressive? Amazing that he made a human with admirable qualities? Not really - God can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to make some good humans?

So in essence you are saying that the concept of God in and of itself is unimpressive, given Gods presumed credentials...right?

No, why do you like to paint me as a demon? Do I have horns on both sides of all of my posts?
I'm saying that the concept of God in and of itself is very impressive - equally impressive as the concept of a universe without God in and of itself.
To me, it is equally impressive that "something" (a God-universe or a non-God universe) exists instead of "nothing."

Now, let's step into those existing universes:

Once we've established that we live in a God-existing universe, and God is all-powerful because He created the universe... once that's already accepted... only THEN is it "not all that impressive" that God is capable of creating good humans. Why would it be? Why would it be impressive that an all-powerful God can create something? Wouldn't that sort of be an expected trait of a God that's all-powerful? Kind of like being impressed that Usain Bolt can run 100m faster than Stile, no? Usain Bolt being fast is very impressive (like God existing). But Usain Bolt being faster than Stile is not very impressive (like God creating humans) - this is to be expected.

Once we've established that we live in a non-God-existing universe, we have a dead, sterile universe - with lots of chemicals and reactions and things, but nothing alive.
All kinds of physical things happen - stars exploding, plants forming, atmospheres forming... Do we "expect" life? Do we "expect" humans? I don't think we do. I think it's quite possible that such a universe could continue for billions of years without ever forming life. Maybe forever (given the "wrong-type" of universe...)
But... then something crazy happens. Life does form! And that life, by whatever-other-unintelligently-guided-proccesses... creates humans! And some of those humans are good people with good morals!!!
Now THAT's impressive. Something amazing happening when it's not expected. Like me beating Usain Bolt in a 100m race.

So, in essence, you are claiming that IF mindless chemicals evolved into intelligent life without the need for creativity or guidance from a Deity this fact in and of itself would be more impressive. Am I right?

Basically, yes. But with more flair and trumpets!!

If my worldview is correct, we won't ever see God or be able to see God. Thus, your claim that we don't see God is moot.

I don't think you understand.

You seem to have this idea that "the things Thugpreacha believes are true are an accurate reflection of reality."
I think that because you hold this idea: You think that Stile holds this idea as well.
But, you're wrong. I hold no such idea.

I understand that "our description of the world according to evidence" is not "an accurate reflection of reality." It is only "our best approximation of what we think reality is like."
That is - no matter how many times apples fall from trees and hit the ground - I do not believe that apples fall from trees and hit the ground. I believe this:

"Something we think of as apples" - "goes through a process we partly understand and currently call falling" - "from things we think of as trees" - "and has the possibility of being prevented from further linear movement as an entity through" - "what we think of as the ground."

Now, in order to walk and talk with the rest of us humans - I just say "Apples fall from trees and hit the ground." But I don't hold any of that statement as an "accurate reflection of reality." Only our "current approximation due to our limited understanding of reality."

Because I hold this core paradigm so strongly, and you do not - I think you're having a really hard time understanding my side of this.
(Note: This paradigm is not unique to Stile by any means... almost all scientists and all skeptics-who-aren't-scientists understand this paradigm very well, it began hundreds of years ago as we left the Dark Ages.)

Because of this way-Stile-thinks-of-things: I do no think that "because there is no evidence of God" means that "there absolutely is no such thing as God."
However, even if God exists - if there's no evidence of God, then there's no evidence of God and because "evidence" is (so far) our best way to know things and understand reality - it would then be foolish to believe that God exits - even if He actually does.

Just like driving your car to work every morning.
If there is no evidence that your car isn't safe to drive - it is foolish to spend an hour going over all the safety systems of your car every morning - even if one of the systems is actually out.
(If you don't believe that's accurate, you will be spending an hour every morning going over the safety systems of your car before you drive for the rest of your life.)

God actually existing even though there's no evidence of Him doesn't make my claim moot - it actually makes my claim even more pertinent.
We all do it for most things in our lives. I just understand it, and apply it to God, too.

All that can be claimed is that we don't see God no matter where we look.

Agreed.
And this is evidence that God does not exist.
It is not "as accurate reflection of reality" - but, really, nothing ever is.
Your confusion on this matter is the heart of your problem.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be meant to be this way?

Yes.

That an omnipotent powerful Deity....involved thoroughly in the creative process all around and in us...is so thoroughly and completely unevidenced and undetectable?

Sure.

That perhaps....just perhaps...His existence can only be known through willful acceptance and belief?

Not possible.
His existence may be assumed under such circumstances. But not "known." We (humans) have attempted this method of "knowing things" and it is full of extremely large pitfalls and failures. We called it "The Dark Ages." You are free to try it again, and if you find a way to actually "know things" in a confident way - I will be extremely interested. But your claim that you can "know things" this way is exactly the problem with such a method: I can just as easily claim to "know" that God does not exist according to your same qualifications - and then what?

Not magic, mind you.

Not at all.
More: fulfillment of a personal need.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 4:50 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 10-31-2019 10:38 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 87 of 853 (865820)
10-31-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
10-31-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Thugpreacha writes:

Stile writes:

You seem to have this idea that "the things Thugpreacha believes are true are an accurate reflection of reality."
I think that because you hold this idea: You think that Stile holds this idea as well.
But, you're wrong. I hold no such idea.

I do understand. I believe that God is a part of all reality. And you think that "No God" is a part of all truth.

This very first sentence shows that you really, really don't understand.

Have another read of my explanation:

quote:
I understand that "our description of the world according to evidence" is not "an accurate reflection of reality." It is only "our best approximation of what we think reality is like."
That is - no matter how many times apples fall from trees and hit the ground - I do not believe that apples fall from trees and hit the ground. I believe this:

"Something we think of as apples" - "goes through a process we partly understand and currently call falling" - "from things we think of as trees" - "and has the possibility of being prevented from further linear movement as an entity through" - "what we think of as the ground."

Now, in order to walk and talk with the rest of us humans - I just say "Apples fall from trees and hit the ground." But I don't hold any of that statement as an "accurate reflection of reality." Only our "current approximation due to our limited understanding of reality."


What part of that do you think can be interpreted to say "Stile thinks that No God is a part of all truth?"
What you should be understanding is that "Stile does not think anything at all can be said to be a 'part of all truth.'"

You're missing this huge paradigm shift between us.
Without understanding this - you're not going to be able to understand anything about me.
This is why everything you ever claim about "Stile thinks this..." is always wrong.
You don't understand the foundation I base things off of - you think it's similar to the foundation you use yourself. It is not. It is very, very different.

Thugpreacha writes:

Stile believes that evidence is the "best way to know things" and thus a belief.

Also incorrect.
Evidence has been proven to be the "best way to know things" (and is therefore not a 'belief.') It's why we have computers and no longer fear the Black Death.

Your primary hangup is that you allow evidence to be your core belief, which leaves no room for any other possible idea.

First - that is not my core belief.

Second - This is you projecting again.
You hold "whatever Thugpreacha holds" as your core belief and that has no room for any other possible idea.
You then apply this concept to me.

But that's not how I work:

I hold "whatever Stile holds" as my core belief - but it is fundamental to this core system that I must have room for ALL other possible ideas.
Therefore, what you claim about me cannot possibly be true.

Critics would say that people like you worship science in the definition of a tried and true best way (only way) of knowing things.

Why do you say I worship science?
I am begging you to show me something that's better than science. It is one of my strongest held desires that we discover something "better" than science for knowing things.

Do you wish for God to be replaced? I don't think you do. That's because you worship God.
I do, however, wish for science to be replaced. That's because I do not worship science.

Let's try an analogy here:

I drive my car, it's a modern Hyundai Elantra.
An acceptable car. It's actually pretty good - but it's far from perfect.

I wish for a replacement. I am begging for someone to give me a better car.
But - this doesn't mean I don't drive my existing car.
My existing car works - it gets me to work and home and to fun places. It is the best-possible-way I have to commute.
No one's given me a better car, yet. But if they did - I'd replace my old car with it and use it immediately.

Science is like this.
Science is an acceptable reality understand-er. It's actually pretty good - but it's far from perfect.

I wish for a replacement. I am begging for someone to give me a better way to understand reality.
But - this doesn't mean I don't use science in the mean time.
Existing science works - it gets us out of the Dark Ages and into the modern Information Age. It is the best-possible-way I have to understand reality.
No one's given me a better way to understand reality, yet. But if they did - I'd replace science with it and use it immediately.

Does that help at all?
Would you compare God to a shitbox like the Hyundai Elantra - where there are obviously many, many vehicles that are "greater" or "better?"

This is one of our differences:
You worship God and do not want Him to be replaced.
I do not worship science/empiricism/materialism, and I definitely do want to replace them all.

Because of this faith in empiricism, you cannot believe any other way, which has given society supercomputers, the eradication of many diseases, longer lifespans, and technological wonders.

I do not have faith in empiricism. I am stuck with empiricism. I have faith that something better will replace empiricism and give us things even greater than supercomputers and the eradication of many diseases. I have faith in more.

I get it. (I think )

Not from what you just posted.
Please try again. Maybe read that car/science analogy a few times. I think it's a really good analogy for what I'm attempting to describe to you about how I think (and many, many other "empiricism-types" you encounter.)

Edited by Stile, : Added section calling my car a shitbox


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 10-31-2019 10:38 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021