(November 21, 2011 at 3:40 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(November 21, 2011 at 2:37 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: NO EVIDENCE = NO SANTA CLAUS!



Would that be incorrect too?

Yes.

I totally disagree, but I like the consistency.

Aimed at nobody in particular...just a general frustrated and rubbish attempt at philosophy...You know, I've had a lot of debate on here already, some good, and some bad. This place is great. There's some really clever guys on here, some wayyyyyyy too clever for me, but...

Not many people it seems to want to bring facts into their arguments, yet atheists and skeptics love facts, and thrive looking for evidence evidence? I do anyway. It seems facts aren't too useful to philosophical arguments. That said, maybe I just can't do philosophy.

Facts? A chimp is a primate - fact. Earth is a planet - fact. The tooth fairy is a fictional creation, as is the hobbit - fact. No arguments so far?

Personally speaking, and hey, I could be wrong - I feel no amount of philosophical gymnastics and arguments should be able to skirt around or oppose known facts. If we KNOW something to be true, then that should be it, end of story.

No I'm not talking about "theories" which can be updated on new evidence - of course we can accept a theory as true, and latterly change or update it. Or even bin it. Theory is about gaining knowledge, proving the theory and so on. Probably a bad analogy of what theory is but I'm sure most get the gist. What I'm talking about is factual knowledge, about knowing - such as we know a tree is a tree - fact. There will NEVER be evidence to prove a tree is a jellyfish. Why? Because it is a tree and we know it is a tree. Dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish is surely not suspension of critical thinking? If dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish would be a suspension of critical thinking, then I don't want to critical think!

What I'm trying to say is there are things we can know, as fact. There are possibilities we can instantly dismiss as absurd. Not even give the possibility the time of day, even if for philosophy's sake.

Likewise, if I write a book about a fictional fairy, I made it up. I know I made it up and I know it is not real. My knowledge is that I know that character is fictional - and that is a errrrrr, fact (lol) I also know there is NO possibility of it being real or being found in a jungle somewhere because it's fictional. Dismissing the possibility of this fictional character being real is IMO not suspending my critical thinking. In this example situation, with the "facts" to hand the fictional to real possibiilty of the fairy seems the same as the tree to jellyfish possibiility - both beyond absurd. Even philosophy must have some limits on possibility? Otherwise what is the impossible, and why do we even have the word?

Erm, back to my point I was trying to make in a previous post - we know the tooth fairy is fictional, and because of this fact I can dismiss any possibility it's real.

I hope somebody understands what I'm trying to say, I can't always explain myself as well as I'd like to.

(November 21, 2011 at 6:25 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Do you tell your fellow Muslims that they can't know of Allah's existence?

I won't say that to them unless if they make the claim first - i.e. that they know of Allah's existence - but I haven't encountered that so far.

(November 21, 2011 at 10:45 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(November 21, 2011 at 6:25 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Do you tell your fellow Muslims that they can't know of Allah's existence?

I won't say that to them unless if they make the claim first - i.e. that they know of Allah's existence - but I haven't encountered that so far.

The fact that they have adopted that particular religion espouses their claim to the existence of allah else why pray to it and follow the teachings? I contend that all who adopt a god oriented religion have, by association, made claim to the existence of a god.

NO EVIDENCE = NO GOD....

How's this....

The absence of all evidence for the necessity of X existing is evidence against the necessary existence of X.

I use this regarding deism or pantheism. Two cryptic and vague assertions, from my perspective. It seems to be that the only underpinning for them is an anthropomorphic perspective regarding the universe/cosmos.

Conserning theistic deities... there I'm a gnostic atheist. I know that they do not exist, just as I know I cannot "square a circle".

Theistic deities are founded upon an intuitive act of the personality where one centers the being. This execution of this act is via religious faith. If faith is lost here, the result is that there is no god; thus no center for the being. It all collapses.

Empirical investigation is something else. This is an act of knowledge. The "trust" here is not the the religious flavor (aka Faith), but founding investigation upon empirical evidences and theories that are possibilities for these evidences. An investigation utilizing even the most unreliable evidences that stem from an act of knowledge are not to be cofused with an act of the personality. Faith in the religious sense of the word does not enter the picture here. If an evidence or theory within this realm is deemed to be an error, the only thing that occurs here is a refinement of the scientific understanding of what can be accepted. Science is not nullified via a loss of trust in such an evidence.

Deal is this...

There is no empirical evidence to support any existence of any deity. Think about it...

How does one go about supporting a "supernatural entity"?
Via "natural evidences" of an empirical variety?

Sounds like a massive non sequitur too me.

The being "needs to be centered"... why?
Especially if there are no centers present in the universe/cosmos.

It all has to be "explained... why it is all created as it is"!
What?
First of all, do fact rely on our permission and awareness of them to exist?

Created... a temporal designation if I'm not mistaken. "Beginning and ends are intentional designation from the perception of a perceiver... us.
Would not placing the demand that the universe/cosmos "view things" from the "perception of beginnings and ends" (aka creation-destruction) not be an anthropomorphic extention of our ego upon the universe/cosmos? Gee... and I didn't happen to mention the thermodynamic crap about energy not being WHAT.... created or destroyed... so much for the perception of creation. Simply our ability to view collages of energies that are present, have always been present, will continue to be present, but become a thing... why... because we recognize them in such a manner to grant them "thingness". (Did Columbus discover America or did a bunch of natives discover Columbus on their beach?)

Assuming creation of the universe in saying that it must have logically been created, which defies the laws of thermodynamics and the underpinnings of matter and gravity within the universe/cosmos and is quite ILLOGICAL, assumes an anthropomorphic proxy of the will (ego) from the beginning; thus ignoring the fact that energy just is.

Circular reasoning works, because ciruclar reasoning works, because....


Sorry... I'm just playing here with a bunch of random thoughts.

If someone says that they believe in a theistic god deity via the proof of faith... I grant them that. I don't share in their faith, but I am not at liberty to rape them of their faith. If they claim that a theistic god deity exists via evidences found in our universe/cosmos (empirical evidences and futher observations of acts of knowledge) then they are fair game.

Religious faith is not empirical fact (acts of knowledge). If religious faith is held to the standard of empirical fact (acts of knowledge), then this religious faith is made trivial and it loses all potential dynamics of power for the individual. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who shares in the religious faith would make a trivial folly out of their faith. Odd as it is, me as a gnostic atheist, I have to remind people of faith what power their faith can have for them.

Ever try to help a fish back into the water?

Meow!

GREG

(November 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Not many people it seems to want to bring facts into their arguments, yet atheists and skeptics love facts, and thrive looking for evidence evidence? I do anyway. It seems facts aren't too useful to philosophical arguments. That said, maybe I just can't do philosophy.

That is interesting, because facts have a ton to do with philosophy. You cannot ponder possibilities well if you do not know some basic facts.

Take your earlier debate in this thread for example.

We cannot know whether god exists or not at this point because there is no infallible evidence or proof, either way.

There is loads of proof that Santa Claus is not real, at least not in the sense that he is the man in children's stories. There could have been a Santa Claus, but that Santa Claus is arguably false. Adults do not find mysterious presents for their children under the tree often enough for Santa to be considered real. There is no evidence for immortality or that sort of longevity in a human being, which Santa is. "Magic" has not been proven and we know for a fact that at least the majority of Santa stories are fiction admitted to be fiction by the very people who authored the stories.

Unfortunately, god is much more complicated than that, thank to the very storytellers and readers who believe it. None of the storytellers from the Bible would admit such a (then) politically and socially important novel was false. The sequels and fanfic arising from the first documents were just as important. You have all of the convenience of "faith" and "just knowing" to make it impossible to tell if these followers are sincere or deluded. Even if the writers of the Bible admitted they were full of shit, you will still have the very small chance they were lying about lying. Even Stephen King's stories cannot be 100% dismissed, given that he could have access to another dimension where these things and events are real and occurring that he doesn't want to tell anyone about. It is certainly more logical to dismiss the stories, but to say you know for certain it is absolutely impossible for it to be true is taking an understandable disbelief too far. So, you see, philosophical reasoning in itself is fact. It is a fact that you cannot dismiss things such as stories completely because there are too many variables.

Quote:Facts? A chimp is a primate - fact. Earth is a planet - fact. The tooth fairy is a fictional creation, as is the hobbit - fact. No arguments so far?

See above. I would go further and say that a planet is only a planet in the English language and, even translated, it is safe to assume it is only a "planet" on planet Earth. It might be a marshmallow elsewhere.

Quote:Personally speaking, and hey, I could be wrong - I feel no amount of philosophical gymnastics and arguments should be able to skirt around or oppose known facts. If we KNOW something to be true, then that should be it, end of story.

Why, so you can be self-limiting? We are not talking about hokey spiritual shit here. We are talking about the critical thinking that has created such knowledge as species categorization and recognizing the Earth as one of many celestial objects.

Quote:No I'm not talking about "theories" which can be updated on new evidence - of course we can accept a theory as true, and latterly change or update it. Or even bin it. Theory is about gaining knowledge, proving the theory and so on. Probably a bad analogy of what theory is but I'm sure most get the gist. What I'm talking about is factual knowledge, about knowing - such as we know a tree is a tree - fact. There will NEVER be evidence to prove a tree is a jellyfish. Why? Because it is a tree and we know it is a tree. Dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish is surely not suspension of critical thinking? If dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish would be a suspension of critical thinking, then I don't want to critical think!

That is different. We have categorized a tree as a plant and a jellyfish as an animal. No one is arguing that a tree is a jellyfish, though I am sure that someone will jump in with some Quantum physics and prove me wrong. There is also the fact that truth is a matter of perception. What is true to you may be different for others. There could be some poor deluded nutcase staring out her window right now at an apple-producing jellyfish in her backyard.

Quote:What I'm trying to say is there are things we can know, as fact. There are possibilities we can instantly dismiss as absurd. Not even give the possibility the time of day, even if for philosophy's sake.

Sure, there are some thoughts that are probably a waste of time. However, even simple concepts like 2+2=4 can be twisted in some way to make it so 2+2=5, I am sure. Three men and a pregnant female perhaps? It depends on how you count it.

Quote:Likewise, if I write a book about a fictional fairy, I made it up. I know I made it up and I know it is not real. My knowledge is that I know that character is fictional - and that is a errrrrr, fact (lol) I also know there is NO possibility of it being real or being found in a jungle somewhere because it's fictional. Dismissing the possibility of this fictional character being real is IMO not suspending my critical thinking. In this example situation, with the "facts" to hand the fictional to real possibiilty of the fairy seems the same as the tree to jellyfish possibiility - both beyond absurd. Even philosophy must have some limits on possibility? Otherwise what is the impossible, and why do we even have the word?

The fictional book thing is an issue because you would be the only person who ever came into contact with that book who could say without any possibility of a doubt, barring mental illness, that the book is fiction.

Now, with all of that being said, there are some things that are completely impossible, at least in this dimension, planet and part of the universe. For example, I can't lick my elbow as my anatomy stands right now.

Quote:The truth of God and his word is a presupposition we reason from.

You're a funny bloke Frods.

ShellB, I don't disagree with much of your post as it is logical. One or two bits I might argue specifics but we're generally on the same side, so I'll leave it.

My wall of type was really inspired because somebody told me that to completely dismiss the possibility of the tooth fairy being real would be a suspension of critical thinking, and further went on to say that IF the tooth fairy was proven to be real then "I wouldn't look so smug then" - well obviously I wouldn't but it's a moot point rather than one based in reality. Anyway I got the hump because I considered that to be taking philosobabble beyond an acceptable level of credibilty - my point being people can tell me all day long that philosophically speaking, "you can't totally rule out the possibility of the tooth fairy being real" - maybe that's so but all that statement suggests to me is that philosophy is flawed. Because let's face it, we KNOW that the tooth fairy is fictional, and as far as I'm concerned, there is no possibility of it being real. I'd rather be right that philosophically correct.

Anyhow, it's no biggie

Agnostic atheism seems to stem from a need to express an intellectually honest approach, in that we cannot know anything 100% unless we are ourselves omniscient.  Also there seems to be a dislike other people putting the burden of proof on them.  However, I am not convinced by this and I do not think agnostic atheism has a superior position (in not having to prove anything) .    The agnostic atheist would also probably affirm the non existence of Mithras or Baal or Zeus or tooth fairies.  The data supporting their supernaturql existence however is exactly equivalent to any other god Inc Christianity.  Thus I think strong atheism is more consistent here.  It is not what we can know, but what we are justified in believing that's important, and we are not justified in believing such wild, unsubstantiated claims.  For me agnostic atheism reduces into just atheism, for whilst it is true that we cannot know whether there is a god, if you don’t believe in “God”, then the absence of evidence or reasoned argument for “God” necessarily entails that you also affirm the non-existence of “God”. Or said differently : only a Believer is deluded enough to look past the total lack of evidence.

I think that agnostic atheism would also rightly point out, that they don't even know what the believer means by a god.  But this turns us to plain atheism again, as the argument from the meaninglessness of god, is in support of strong atheism stance and is consistent with other arguments  that demonstrate that the world is exactly as you would expect it to be if atheism were true.  In addition I think many agnostic atheists would also claim to be at least partly 'strong' atheists for certain gods described by theists, given their incoherent secondary attributes.  Both strong and agnostic atheists have absolutely no idea what the theist means when they talk about god and are left to conclude that such a being is so magical, mystical and far from  experience it doesn't exist.  For one I am happy to move one stage further and debate these points owning the need to make the argument for atheism.

As an atheist.  Do I have a burden of proof ? The burden of proof belongs to he who makes a claim about reality. Until Theists can give a meaningful account of their belief and give some actual evidence or reasoning for said meaning, atheists have nothing to prove. All that atheistic arguments provide are a reiteration of this burden of proof, as well as some other fatal problems with certain assumed properties of the god concept.

(November 22, 2011 at 11:39 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Agnostic atheism seems to stem from a need to express an intellectually honest approach, in that we cannot know anything 100% unless we are ourselves omniscient.  

I think you have touched on something here that is maybe worth investigating.

Why is the criteria of "knowing" founded upon 100% knowledge of all possible case scenarious past present and future?

example...

I am fully aware of the effects of gravity. I am not fully aware of all case scenarious of how gravity may or may not effect events, past present or future.

Is it possible to take exception the "knowing" that if one jumps off the top of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, without a parachute or anything else to hinder one's fall, that one will fall to the ground below?

Is it possible to "know" that such a fall will indeed cause death?

I can certainly go to the pains of placing here a mathematical equasion to verify that the physical body cannot withstand the impact of such a fall and there is no chance of surviving such a fall. (I choose this rather than falling into a wood chipper, as that requires even less math to figure out... I wish to give the "neh sayers" a bit of a chance here)

I am not aware of the effects of gravity in all cases from all buildings and all altitudes, but I can certainly say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if you care to jump off the top of this building, you will fall to your certain death.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt"...

Some doubts are reasonable, but others may well not be. Do we have any doubts that there is not such thing as a square circle? Just because one can say the term"square circle", does not make it a reality in the empirical/physical sense of the word, other than being a "figure of speech".

A deity of theism = supernatural being
Proof of such a deity comes from our experience = experience of the natural

Natural proves supernatural?

Such misappropriations of natural evidences to confirm a supernatural whatever do provide very reasonable doubts; thus the dismissal of them being so. The possibility of natural evidences cannot logically include the wishful imagination of supernatural whatevers. Just as, the possible figures that one can draw on a piece of paper will never include a thing that is a indeed a square circle. No amount of physical probability can support superphysical wishful thinking. This can ideed be "known" and "known for sure".

Knowing is not an issue of being omni-whatever, but simply an act of knowledge... not an act of faith.

Again... let's not mix up empirical evidences with intuitive notions.

Just as one cannot hold faith up to the standard of empirical evaluation; one cannot invalidate empirical investigation with the whims of intuitive wishes.

Meow!

GREG