| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John Rohrer" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2004 12:03:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: No evidence of God yet... |
Douglas wrote:
I am an agnostic. Now that that's out of the way, I do not believe that
the God portrayed in Christian mythology or any other religion is real or
even close. Prayer and worship is just a waste of time because no God is
listening.
Well, there's the power of expectations, hope, self-fulfilling prophecies,
mind-body medicine...what did I leave out...
I thought God was all powerful and perfect. Well this place
(Earth) is a disaster. I am not impressed with his work if that is the
case. I tried to talk to God, but he won't answer me back. He must not
like me.
Well, the bible says He gave us free will, right? As far as your "no reply", it
may be that you're not listening in the right way or in the right frame of mind.
Hey, it's plausible anyway.
All I have to say to a theist is prove it. They will freeze
up...naturally because even they know their beliefs are totally irrational.
They will often come back with "Prove he doesn't exist". The burden of
proof lies in the theist lap. They should convince me he is real, not scare
me into believing he is real with the "threat" of Hell after death. I
believe when you die, you die. No heaven or hell. Just nothing. It will
feel the way you felt before you were born.
I don't know how you can say to such a certain degree. It seems congruent with
common sense and observation, but common sense and observation may not be
equipped to give us any thorough understanding of mortality. Many perspectives
can be taken, and they all make sense to those who take them. For instance,
who's to say that there's nothing to the idea of reincarnation? Who's to say
we're not just the eyes of the universe winking open and shut as we watch
ourselves through the ages? Is the concept of personal identity inherently
misleading? If our identities are functions of our brief, local experience of
the universe, what are the implications? Alternately, if there is a more basic,
essential identity, would that not live in each locus of experience manifested
throughout the universe? ...food for thought anyway.
I can accept that. Theist
can't. So they decided to make up a nice place for good people and a bad
place for bad people. Sounds like this was made up a long time ago to keep
people in line and give them hope that "when I die, I will go to heaven."
Without religion, people would see no reason to live here. Anarchy would
happen.
Perhaps "civilized" culture (where the food is under lock and key) breeds
heirarchy and injustice and suppresses true tribal democracy. If you've toiled
under oppression your whole life while a privileged few commit atrocities with
impunity (as the system enables), divine justice is an understandably welcome
concept. "Keeping the masses in line" sounds to me like an attempt to save a
society whose social bonds were dissolved by and insidious atmosphere of control
and personal entitlement (the dangerous combination which seems to me to be at
the heart of the agricultural revolution which spawned the need for
"salvationist" religions. You see, indigenous cultures (still being extinguished
by civilization's zealous expansion) ascribe to "animistic" religions focused on
the interdependent harmony of life, rather than a way to cope with our current
disequilibruim. If you contest that the alternative is anarchy, I submit the
opinion that heirarchical governmental systems create the suffering which
"salvationist" religions medicate.
Heaven, sounds nice...lets go there and prove it once and for all...oh,
thats right. How convienient. We can't go there alive and there is no
scientific reason to believe in its existence anyway. Heaven is not real.
Period.
Well, who's to say unequivocally that it's not? Or maybe it's all a matter of
perspective. It seems real enough as a metaphor for creating a utopian society.
But then, utopianism seems inherently divisive, as it rejects compromise in
favor of the One Right Way which seems to cause so many conflicts.
God, sounds like an interesting person...I would like to meet him
now...oh, thats right. How convienient. He doesn't talk back and science
has yet to find his radio frequency. Either God doesn't care about us or he
doesn't exist.
Begging for opinions please.
Maybe we *are God in the sense that we're indistinguishably connected to every
perticle in the known universe. Maybe we're trying to playing God all over this
planet. Or maybe, just *maybe, there *is a real God out there who entrusted us
with this fine planet... which will cease to be when Christ returns to send the
non-Christian 2/3 of the planet straight to hell or purgatory along with all of
the Christian sects who happened to be wrong (oops) any any within the *right
faith who weren't quite able to follow all of the rules. Oh yeah, I forgot to
include any sentient beings inhabiting any of the other trillion planets
throughout the universe.Gee, hell sounds like the place to be to meet new
people.
Crossing my fingers,
John
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 02:47:34 PM |
|
|
In article <E_i0c.84279$4o.107880@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
You are arguing ...
I am not making an argument, knucklehead. I have nothing (no thing) to
prove.
Which the literate read as "I have proved nothing".
As soon as you state that something is true or that something is false,
you have something to prove.
All I am doing is pointing out a very simple and very basic principle of
valid argument (logic). If you want to claim that you know the facts in
any particlar case, then you must publicly demonstrate how it is that
you know what you say you know.
But what if you do not choose to make that claim? Do you not have
knowledge until you have publicly claimed to have it?
Consider Gauss.
You seem to want to pass off personal subjective conviction (belief) as
knowledge. That won't work on any but the most gullible, knucklehead.
Not at all. According to you, knowledge is a publish or perish item. If
you do not publish it, it must be because you don't really have it.
In my world, publishing something is a matter of publicity, not truth.
It is the gullible who are more persuaded by publicity that by proof.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is better with them that with those who
bother to think about his unproven and unprovable claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 04:46:00 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
You are arguing ...
I am not making an argument ...
Not a logical one, at any rate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 04:52:22 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
... I have nothing (no thing) to prove.
You have nothing (no thing) in your head.
[]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 11:31:47 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
... I have nothing (no thing) to prove.
You have nothing (no thing) in your head.
False, I received a brain the day they were passing them out. You
thought they said, "Pain" so you ran the other way? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 07:10:57 PM |
|
|
In article <7mp0c.83647$Xp.381893@attbi_s54>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
... I have nothing (no thing) to prove.
You have nothing (no thing) in your head.
False, I received a brain the day they were passing them out.
And it is just like new, never been used.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 12:36:28 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
... I have nothing (no thing) to prove.
You have nothing (no thing) in your head.
False, I received a brain the day they were
passing them out.
If I were you then, I'd seriously consider suing
it for non-support.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 05:02:30 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
... I have nothing (no thing) to prove.
You have nothing (no thing) in your head.
False, I received a brain the day they were passing them out.
You stood in the wrong line. What you actually got was a potato.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 06:00:38 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
You are arguing ...
I am not making an argument, knucklehead. I have nothing (no thing) to
prove.
.... other than rationality.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
?
_²a¨DÔwıRó
_²a¨DÔw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
28 Feb 2004 05:19:08 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Since knowledge need not be demonstrated to exist ...
[unsnip the rest]: your argument is irrelevent to the issue.
That seems to have the status ...r
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
28 Feb 2004 08:03:29 PM |
|
|
Snipper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Since knowledge need not be demonstrated to exist ...
[snip]
[unsnip]
That seems to have the status of Theist Mantra around here, but it is
simply balderdash.
If you cannot publicly demonstrate how it is that you know the facts in
any particular case, then you cannot get away with claiming to know the
facts. You will get your case tossed right out of court if you base it
on subjective conviction (belief).
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 01:51:52 AM |
|
|
In article <RLb0c.143511$jk2.573082@attbi_s53>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Snipper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Since knowledge need not be demonstrated to exist ...
[snip]
[unsnip]
That seems to have the status of Theist Mantra around here, but it is
simply balderdash.
It is quite true that knowing does not require demonstrating. The
post-mortem investigation of Gauss' papers revealed that he knew a lot
of things before he died that were not demonstrated to anyone else in
his lifetime. Or does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, suggest that it
was Gauss' spirit which discovered these things after his death?
If you cannot publicly demonstrate how it is that you know the facts in
any particular case, then you cannot get away with claiming to know the
facts. [ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
Quite true, but claiming to know something is NOT an essential part of
knowing it.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ] >
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ] >
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ] >
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ] >
Public knowledge is only public when it has been publicly demonstrated,
but private knowledge is knowledge though Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple deny it with his dying breath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 04:11:20 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... private knowledge ...
Contradiction in terms. You are thinking of private, personal subjective
conviction (belief). If you want to claim that you know the facts in any
particular case, then you must demonstrate publicly how it is that you
know the facts, so that any interested observer can check your observations.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - inprinciple - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 02:38:39 PM |
|
|
In article <cVi0c.145636$jk2.576189@attbi_s53>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... private knowledge ...
Contradiction in terms.
Gauss had private knowledge of a great deal of mathematics during his
lifetime. Some of it became public incidentally, like his knowledge of
non-Euclidean geometry, But some of it was only revealed from his notes
after his death.
Does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, wish to deny that these things
were truly private (maybe God knew them, too)or that they were truly
knowledge?
Whichever line he takes, he will have the vast majority of
mathematicians on his case, if not the entire world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 04:42:33 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... private knowledge ...
... You are thinking ...
That's one major advantange he has over you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 05:49:00 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... private knowledge ...
Contradiction in terms. You are thinking of private, personal
subjective conviction (belief).
How do you know what he's thinking? Are you God, for which there
is no objective evidence, BTW?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 03:06:32 AM |
|
|
Navigator (aka Septic) wrote:
Snipper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Since knowledge need not be demonstrated to exist ...
[snip]
[unsnip]
That seems to have the status of Theist Mantra around here,
but it is simply balderdash.
If you cannot publicly demonstrate how it is that you know
the facts in any particular case, then you cannot get away
with claiming to know the facts. You will get your case
tossed right out of court if you base it on subjective
conviction (belief).
Nobody claimed any differently, idiot.
See Popper, _The Logic of ...
[snip cut & paste, ad nauseam quote]
Why don't you try this: Since a genius like Hawking
can't win the Nobel Prize because conditions stipulate
that his theories be tested, I ask you, for his sake,
to use your Imaginary Time & then invent yourself a
'false vacuum'. Then your poorly understood 'quantum
foam' should break up at magnified distances as short
as 10-33 centimeter so that the particle-antiparticle
pairs that incessantly annihilate each other then bear
witness to autoflaming yourself into extinction, and
if that doesn't work, you could always shoot yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 03:48:37 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigator (aka Septic) wrote:
Snipper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Since knowledge need not be demonstrated to exist ...
[snip]
[unsnip]
That seems to have the status of Theist Mantra around here,
but it is simply balderdash.
If you cannot publicly demonstrate how it is that you know
the facts in any particular case, then you cannot get away
with claiming to know the facts. You will get your case
tossed right out of court if you base it on subjective
conviction (belief).
Nobody claimed any differently.
Then what does the balderdash in question, "Knowledge need not be
demonstrated" mean, knucklehead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 01:55:01 PM |
|
|
In article <Rzi0c.145526$jk2.575986@attbi_s53>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Then what does the balderdash in question, "Knowledge need not be
demonstrated" mean, knucklehead?
Which words do you not understand?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 05:43:04 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Then what does the balderdash in question, "Knowledge need not be
demonstrated" mean, knucklehead?
Intense and valid argument doesn't seem to get through the
impervious rock that sits between the two tawdry
accoutrements of a cheap ***** that you are pleased to call
your ears, so I will demonstrate your absurdity by way of
analogy. An analogy, I will add, that is 100% fact. Let's
see if you can get the idea that way...
I know for a fact that the government of my country denies having
a particularly nasty weapon in its arsenal, yet I was party to the
designs, manufacture and deployment of the weapon in question to
our armed forces.
Since I am under oath and thus subject to the provisions of my
country's Official Secrets Act, "demonstrat[ing] any truth in that
knowledge", will likely subject me to a lengthy sojourn between
four brick walls at Her Majesty's pleasure. And that's a fact.
Your argument is invalid. In it's entirety.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 12:35:51 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
=Navigator wrote:
=
=> Then what does the balderdash in question, "Knowledge
=> need not be demonstrated" mean, knucklehead?
--snip--
=I know for a fact that the government of my country denies
=having a particularly nasty weapon in its arsenal, yet I was
=party to the designs, manufacture and deployment of the
=weapon in question to our armed forces.
=Since I am under oath and thus subject to the provisions
=of my country's Official Secrets Act, "demonstrat[ing] any
=truth in that knowledge", will likely subject me to a lengthy
=sojourn between four brick walls at Her Majesty's pleasure.
=And that's a fact.
Could be an assertion, as far as anyone knows.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Mt.24:34
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 05:59:33 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigator (aka Septic) wrote:
If you cannot publicly demonstrate how it is that you know
the facts in any particular case, then you cannot get away
with claiming to know the facts. You will get your case
tossed right out of court if you base it on subjective
conviction (belief).
Nobody claimed any differently, idiot.
See Popper, _The Logic of ...
[snip cut & paste, ad nauseam quote]
Why don't you try this: Since a genius like Hawking
can't win the Nobel Prize because conditions stipulate
that his theories be tested, I ask you, for his sake,
to use your Imaginary Time & then invent yourself a
'false vacuum'. Then your poorly understood 'quantum
foam' should break up at magnified distances as short
as 10-33 centimeter so that the particle-antiparticle
pairs that incessantly annihilate each other then bear
witness to autoflaming yourself into extinction, and
if that doesn't work, you could always shoot yourself.
With a bit of Schroedinger's Cat probability thrown in for
good measure, he'll get sucked into the event horizon of
the black hole that's sits in the centre of his head and
he'll end up sucked up his own arse into a completely
different universe. All that will be remain will be the
history of his particles.
No. Scratch that idea. It's fraught with uncertainty. He
is in a different universe, and google is where the history
of his particles can be found. He should go with your last
option.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 12:36:51 AM |
|
|
Navigator, aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arno wrote:
Snipper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Since knowledge need not be demonstrated to exist ...
[snip]
[unsnip]
That seems to have the status...
No one cares what you seem to think, Septic.
-------------------------------------------------------
:Niall McAuley: Therefore we can conclude that Skeptic
:is the stupidest person alive. Skeptic has a variety
:of the same illness which afflicts bleaters. He knows
:his conclusion is true, so any argument which seems to
:support his conclusion looks good to him, no matter
:how full of holes the argument is.
:Victor Danilchenko: Did you consider the possibility
:that Skeptic is actually a theistic troll bent on
:making atheists look like morons?
:Kronk: Skeptic is truly quite fascinating. A mode
:of thought governed by rules accepted on the basis
:of their authority sources, selectively exempted
:according to personal preference, and dogmatically
:defended against all sense and reason.
:Alex Hunsley: Skeptic is actually one of the only
:posters I've ever seen in alt.atheism who passes the
:UnTuring Test - i.e. the postings appear to be computer
:generated, but are probably written by a human. The
:UnTuring test is one of the cornerstones of AS
:(Artificial Stupidity), for which Skeptic is our best
:model currently.
:Fred Stone: It's a terrible judgement on my lack of a life
:when I spend any time at all replying to Muddy (Skeptic).
:He's hardly even worth getting up a good flame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 05:19:37 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
No one cares what you seem to think, Septic.
BZZZZT! Goes to the question of SepticKKK having a brain to
think with in the first place.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
26 Feb 2004 02:02:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:28:42 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Thanks for snipping the whole of the relevant part of my post.
I answered the only part of your post that is relevant to this
discussion. You started off in your very first sentence with a statement
that is not correct, and I showed you why. I take it that you still do
not understand why you are in error.
You posted no valid argument. All you have is an assertion not supported
by the facts, "Knowledge is subjective."
You are answering your own post. Let me know if you need any help.
Thanks for snipping the whole of the relevant part of my post.
I answered the only part of your post that is relevant to this
discussion. You started off in your very first sentence with a statement
that is not correct, and I showed you why. I take it that you still do
not understand why you are in error.
The whole of my post was relevant or I would not have posted it. You
snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that to mean
you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
28 Feb 2004 03:38:14 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:28:42 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Thanks for snipping the whole of the relevant part of my post.
I answered the only part of your post that is relevant to this
discussion. You started off in your very first sentence with a statement
that is not correct, and I showed you why. I take it that you still do
not understand why you are in error.
You posted no valid argument. All you have is an assertion not supported
by the facts, "Knowledge is subjective."
You are answering your own post. Let me know if you need any help.
Thanks for snipping the whole of the relevant part of my post.
I answered the only part of your post that is relevant to this
discussion. You started off in your very first sentence with a statement
that is not correct, and I showed you why. I take it that you still do
not understand why you are in error.
The whole of my post was relevant or I would not have posted it.
The problem is in your first premise, ""Whether someone has knowledge or
not is subjective." That s false. See below for the reason why I say that.
You
snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that to mean
you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
William
There is nothing to debate. All we have here is a one-sided assertion on
your part, "Knowledge is subjective," which is not supported by the
facts, as I explained:
I showed why you are in error: personal subjective conviction (belief)
has no bearing on demonstrating knowledge of the facts in any particular
case, and you have not posted any valid rebuttal of that.
Let me put it to you this way: Your first premise, "Whether someone has
knowledge or not is subjective" is false.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
28 Feb 2004 09:40:59 PM |
|
|
In article <aT70c.80661$4o.104126@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
The problem is in your first premise, ""Whether someone has knowledge or
not is subjective." That s false. See below for the reason why I say that.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's argument below is irrelevant, as he is
only referring to demonstrations of knowledge, not to knowledge itself.
While it is true that one can only convince another of having knowledge
by demonstrating it to the other, such convincing is not essential to
the possession but only to the dissemination of knowledge.
Gauss is a good example of someone who had a great deal of knowledge
which he did not disseminate, but which was only discovered in his notes
post mortem.
You
snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that to mean
you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
William
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
28 Feb 2004 06:33:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:38:14 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
You snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that
to mean you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
There is nothing to debate. All we have here is a one-sided assertion on
your part, "Knowledge is subjective," which is not supported by the
facts, as I explained.
Please show that knowledge is exterior to the mind.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
28 Feb 2004 07:48:41 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:38:14 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
You snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that
to mean you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
There is nothing to debate. All we have here is a one-sided assertion on
your part, "Knowledge is subjective," which is not supported by the
facts, as I explained.
Please show that knowledge is exterior to the mind.
William
You mean please allow William to argue that whatever he says must be
presumed true unless it is proven false? That's shifting the burden of
proof, old sport.
You are the only one who needs to "show" anything, William. You need to
show how you know that your statement, "Knowledge is subjective" is a
true statement.
You won't be able to do that, because your statement is not supported by
the facts, as I explained:
I showed why you are in error: personal subjective conviction (belief)
has no bearing on demonstrating knowledge of the facts in any particular
case, and you have not posted any valid rebuttal of that.
Let me put it to you this way: Your first premise, "Whether someone has
knowledge or not is subjective" is false.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 12:11:50 AM |
|
|
In article <Yxb0c.143466$jk2.572919@attbi_s53>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
William wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:38:14 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
You snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that
to mean you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
Please show that knowledge is exterior to the mind.
William
[Lie Deleted]
[Lie Deleted]
[Lie Deleted]
[Lie Deleted]
[Lie Deleted]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, would have people believe that what
they already know cannot be actually known until they have demonstrated
its truth to someone else. This includes all secrets, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 06:28:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:48:41 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
William wrote:
You snipped it with out comment. Debating practice accepts that
to mean you have no refutation to make. Thanks.
There is nothing to debate. All we have here is a one-sided assertion on
your part, "Knowledge is subjective," which is not supported by the
facts, as I explained.
Please show that knowledge is exterior to the mind.
You mean please allow William to argue that whatever he says must be
presumed true unless it is proven false? That's shifting the burden of
proof, old sport.
You are the only one who needs to "show" anything, William. You need to
show how you know that your statement, "Knowledge is subjective" is a
true statement.
You won't be able to do that, because your statement is not supported by
the facts, as I explained:
I showed why you are in error: personal subjective conviction (belief)
has no bearing on demonstrating knowledge of the facts in any particular
case, and you have not posted any valid rebuttal of that.
Let me put it to you this way: Your first premise, "Whether someone has
knowledge or not is subjective" is false.
You are making the positive claim (namely that the above statement is
false). The onus is therefore on you to show that the statment
"Whether someone has knowledge or not is subjective" is false.
I Look forward to seeing you support your assertion.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
< |
