(March 22, 2019 at 6:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 6:52 pm)Belaqua Wrote: And why do you say I reek of him?

I’ll get to that just as soon as you get to answering my questions posed to you in post #270.

I have addressed those questions already. I don't know why I have to ask and answer everything twice. 

Clearly we have different ways of approaching these issues. What I've said should be clear and ordinary to anyone with some background in metaphysics. 

I also think that the insults and false accusations make conversation difficult. So I'll stop. 

Thank you anyway. I respect your loyalty to your beliefs.

The first question that I asked you in that post was the first time I’ve asked it, so no, you haven’t answered me.

Quote:You're here, on an atheist forum, challenging atheists to reconsider their "metaphysical commitments". Let me ask you yet another question if I may, since you're presenting your position on the question of the existence of god and other metaphysical truths as completely neutral: Are you also registered to theist forums where you challenge the quality of their reasons for belief in the same way that you challenge our reasons for disbelief, and our judgements of their reasons? That's what I would expect from a person who truly has no inclination on the subject yet, one way or the other, and who is looking to challenge all the information and ideas available before taking a committed stance.

It’s fine. I gave you more than ample opportunity to describe this magical, other reliable method for learning about god, and you produced...jack squat. When you decide to take an honest crack at teaching me something that you know and I don’t, I’ll be here. Until then, this thread will remain as evidence of your evasion, and intellectual dishonesty.

It's weird as shit, right, guy says that you and he have clearly different views, but demures as to what his "clearly different view" might even be.

---

(March 22, 2019 at 6:27 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 4:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Funny you should ask, fool.

(it was a crazy ass hindu with a schtick similar to your own that had much better command of emojis)

That's LR. 

RR was the continual dodger who would change the subject when cornered.

Well remembered, I forget the specifics of any given loon if it goes more than a week from posting.  Chances are I'll mistake Bel here for LR and RR and a whole host of other nutballs when it's gone.

(March 22, 2019 at 10:26 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: How do you determine which propositions are and are not empirically demonstrable? Is there a separate category of "real" that is, at the same time as real as a tree, or the ocean, or my house, but possesses some mysterious distinction that renders it undetectable? As I mentioned to you many times now, logical arguments for god rely on assumptions about the observable universe.  I thought we couldn't use observable data to draw conclusions about god?

I'll answer that question.  Mind.  Mind is real, and possesses some mysterious distinction that renders it undetectable.

Reality. Reality, by definition is real, and possesses some mysterious distinction that renders it undetectable.

Truth. Truth is real, also by definition, and possesses some mysterious distinction that renders it undetectable.

Right, wrong, good and evil-- in fact, almost all the words we use to describe our experience of life-- all these things must be experienced subjectively, and cannot really be said to be observed objectively, at least in the communal sense that shareable scientific observations are called objective.

All the questions that you've ever considered philosophically-- they all matter, they are all about real parts of experience, and none of them is an expression of objective observation. Literally 100% of anything you think you know about reality, even that determined through so-called objective observation, has been done through the agency of mind. All of it: looking through telescopes and microscopes, listening to science professors, reading text books. It's all subjective experience, categorized, organized, systematized, but experience nonetheless.

It's one thing to choose the blue pill. But to hide the red pill under a cushion of semantics because those semantics make better cell phones and sharper kitchen knives is, at least in my opinion, a sin against intellect.

Except, ofc, that it's not even romeotely undetectable, or even undetectable by empirical means.  Other than that, stellar example.

(March 22, 2019 at 7:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I gave you more than ample opportunity to describe this magical, other reliable method for learning about god, and you produced...jack squat.

I said very clearly that there is no magical other method. This is something you have imagined. I have never argued for it, and frankly I don't know why you're on about it. 

I can't satisfy your demands to describe something you have dreamed up on your own.

(March 22, 2019 at 8:05 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 7:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I gave you more than ample opportunity to describe this magical, other reliable method for learning about god, and you produced...jack squat.

I said very clearly that there is no magical other method. This is something you have imagined. I have never argued for it, and frankly I don't know why you're on about it.

Ah, so then you agree with me that the scientific method is the only demonstrably reliable method we have for acquiring knowledge about reality.  Excellent!  We’re on the same page now. 😏

(March 22, 2019 at 8:19 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 8:05 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I said very clearly that there is no magical other method. This is something you have imagined. I have never argued for it, and frankly I don't know why you're on about it.

Ah, so then you agree with me that the scientific method is the only demonstrably reliable method we have for acquiring knowledge about reality.  Excellent!  We’re on the same page now. 😏

If you're taking the word "reality" to mean "that which science demonstrates," then science is the only reliable method we have to demonstrate the things that science demonstrates. Whether or not what it demonstrates is reality or not is a metaphysical question, about which you are very certain.

I honestly think you would benefit from an intro course in metaphysics, if you want to discuss it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

(March 22, 2019 at 8:05 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Except, ofc, that it's not even romeotely undetectable, or even undetectable by empirical means.  Other than that, stellar example.

If by "detect," you mean experience something subjectively, and draw inferences based on a collection of ideas (more experiences) which serve as your world view, then okay.  Or if by "mind," you mean to conflate mind with neural correlates, and pretend that you haven't just begged the question, then okay.

But go ahead-- feel free to tell me by what empirical means you will detect whether any particular given material system is capable of experiencing itself and its environment subjectively. Pull out your Mind-O-Meter 2000 ™ and do a little demonstration for us.

* contemplates eternity for a moment, knowing that this is how long it will take Gae to perform his demonstration proving something's not "even remotely undetectable" *

(March 22, 2019 at 8:26 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 8:19 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Ah, so then you agree with me that the scientific method is the only demonstrably reliable method we have for acquiring knowledge about reality.  Excellent!  We’re on the same page now. 😏

If you're taking the word "reality" to mean "that which science demonstrates," then science is the only reliable method we have to demonstrate the things that science demonstrates. Whether or not what it demonstrates is reality or not is a metaphysical question, about which you are very certain.

I honestly think you would benefit from an intro course in metaphysics, if you want to discuss it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

By reality, I mean, that which is real.

You are the one making an assertion that god cannot be detected via empirical investigation; that he is in some other category of real things that are just as real as empirically real things, but for some unidentified reason, not detectable via scientific observation. Your claim. 

So then, when I asked you by what method can one acquire information about the existence of god, you gave me:

1. No answer at all; avoid the question, and—

2. Logical arguments 

to which, I’ve responded several times that logical arguments are not investigative methods, they’re formulas that rely on empirical data, which you already said we couldn’t use to investigate god, lol. I’ve also pointed out that the “God’s” that people think they prove don’t tell us anything about what a god actually is. You have thus far failed to address either of these important points in the discussion. I can only think you’re simply being dishonest.

Also, whoops! You forgot to answer this question for the third time:

Quote:You're here, on an atheist forum, challenging atheists to reconsider their "metaphysical commitments". Let me ask you yet another question if I may, since you're presenting your position on the question of the existence of god and other metaphysical truths as completely neutral: Are you also registered to theist forums where you challenge the quality of their reasons for belief in the same way that you challenge our reasons for disbelief, and our judgements of their reasons? That's what I would expect from a person who truly has no inclination on the subject yet, one way or the other, and who is looking to challenge all the information and ideas available before taking a committed stance.