(February 10, 2010 at 6:06 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The thing is though.... I haven't said anything that makes me remotely guilty of The Argument From Ignorance though have I? (or indeed the argument from personal incredulity therefore).

...because I have not said that I assume that it's false or that some other conclusion that is unproven I assume to be true. I have said I don't think I know of any evidence, that's it.

No, we agree on this. You have only stated a belief. You have drawn no conclusion from it. I have been in total delusion in thinking that it was an argument of some sort since you generally throw in these phrases
after someone has held an argument in favour of X. For the untrained eye it would be quite in line with the discussion to suppose that you were throwing in an argument against X. But in your wording you have drawn no conclusion from it as you've extensively argumented. So I was completely wrong in supposing that. One even wonders how such a delusion comes about. And since you draw no conclusion it is not a syllogism, a statement consiting of premise(s) and conclusion. And since it is not a syllogism you have not used your beliefs or your lack of evidence as an argument. And since you have not done that, you have not committed the fallacy to infer from personal belief or lack of evidence. So in fact we have been arguing page after page for a non-existent assertion. It is just a belief that you happen to share in those odd moments where a person has argued for X. But don't let that timing fool us in believing it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Because as a personal belief it is not relevant for X, Y or Z. In fact it is not relevant at all and we can simply ignore it. I certainly will.

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Can you please put in bold the part where I actually say something like "Because I don't believe I know of any evidence - I assume there isn't any!" or "Because I don't believe I know of no evidence.... then X conclusion must be right instead!!"

I haven't said anything like that.

So I cannot put in bold where you said that and I cannot stress enough the fact that you've argued nothing at all at precisely the wrong moment in debate. But only wrong of course in the eye of the beholder, that poor eye that so often is deluded by the patterns the mind is proposing.

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:The phrase I am using doesn't infer the argument from ignorance at all - the phrase I am using is exactly the sort of thing one can say using the English language that shows "I don't know... and not only that - I don't know that I don't know... so I might know, but I'm not claiming anything [so hence, where is the argument from ignorance? Everyone must be automatically committing the argument from ignorance whenever they make a statement if my statement is committing it - when it's about as far from committing it as you can get.]".

Yes, yes and yes again, you infer nothing at all, you leave that to the poor eye of the beholder. You have seriously gone beyond yourself in stressing that you have claimed nothing at all, that the sentence just as well could have not been there. We must only read your personal belief statement from it. Not an argument, not a reason, not a conclusion, not a point you're making. Get my drift?

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Seriously though... please quote where I have said anything that equates remotely to: "Because X isn't proven then X must be false" or "because X isn't proven then Y must be true"....

And yes, sure, you're right, we can't be clear enough on this. We should shout it from the roof tops (probably a bad dutchism I guess): your remark says noting at all, it is just air to fill in spaces in debate.

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:If you substitute my "I don't know" for "isn't proven" - I still simply leave it at that... "I don't know" - I don't go on to say "therefore X is false" or "therefore Y" so I have no idea what you're talking about because I make no conclusion.

Yes you simply don't know. What's wrong with that? Nothing! Just a remark about your not knowing. Not intended relevant in any way. Hell, you might instead have commented on the rain in Africa LOL!

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:I am not even making a claim really.... that's the whole point. I'm making a statement of my own belief and then saying I'm not even sure if my belief is accurate in regards to the absence of evidence because I am not absolutely sure of anything (I think) - I'm not making any conclusion that falls into The Argument From Ignorance.

You're not making a claim. You're not making an argument. You're not inferring anything. It all is a casual and utterly empty remark. The sheer hollowness of it cannot be fathomed. We should totally ignore it and go on with whatever we were doing. Not even blink an eye, not raise a brow, not scratch an itch. From nothing nothing can come so there has'nt even been dispute on this. Your remark don't even exists. Consider it done.

(February 10, 2010 at 3:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you saw someone come up to you and slap you in the face... you wouldn't say "I believe that person just slapped me in the face" BECAUSE that would be saying that you weren't sure. No, you'd say "I know that person just slapped me in the face". Get off your absolutes bandwagon - it doesn't apply here.

It does apply actually. I was using "knowledge" in the technical philosophical sense of course. If we are to use it in the colloquial usage like you seem to be alluding then that's way too vague - it's confusing with belief. You mean it like subjective "knowlege" as in, someone is really really sure or absolutely certain they "Know" - but that doesn't mean they really know anything because what they think they know could easily be absolute bullshit.

Quote:If you think, having never driven a car, what driving a car is like, it isn't the same as actually driving a car. People can tell you what it's like, and you can be prepared given that information.

Indeed.

Quote:Same with actually believing in God and trying to think what believing in God might be like. I can tell you how great and wonderful it is, and how everything suddenly makes sense, but you can't actually know that until you believe yourself.

How is this the same at all? Driving a car is part of the natural world than is demonsratable, naturally - and how the car works is understood by science. You wouldn't doubt all evidence like that....

God however... you've got your own personal experience to go by but he is unverifiable to others, unknowable, outside science - why don't you doubt your experience? Why don't you think that you could easily be delusional because personal experience is insufficient evidence in science let alone The Supernatural.

Why is personal experience itself evidence to you? It doesn't matter what the experiences are - why is ANY experience evidence? Surely it is completely insufficient?

That is unverifiable is a sign of weakness, not strength, is it not? And the fact that something Supernatural requires more evidence, not less, is another sign of weakness, is it not?

So false analogy I say. Riding a car is something natural that can be demonstrated and tested by science, it is verifiable. An unverifiable, personal, experience - For God's existence... is a different matter. Because it doesn't matter what the experience is - the evidence needs to be stronger than that does it not?

EvF

because God doesn't submit to peer review doesn't make it any less real, much like you being lost in your break believing you were Jesus. The analogy was accurate from my perspective.It is not insufficient by itself , unless it's non objectifiable. You can experience the results of an unexpected result from an experiment. It could be a random result that's not duplicatable because your parameters weren't limiting enough. We're trying to define those parameters still for God, who is outside the known universe, which makes it a lot more difficult than some beakers in front of us. In fact, experience is the best evidence tor the intangible. Sure it'd be great if it was duplicatable or exactly repaeatable, but that's the nature of the intangible beast.

(February 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm)tackattack Wrote: because God doesn't submit to peer review doesn't make it any less real...

So we can fabulate anything and drop the reality/sanity check of peer review?!

It looks you're touching on the core principles of religious believing here.

(February 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: So we can fabulate anything and drop the reality/sanity check of peer review?!

No. Only what logically pertains.

(February 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm)tackattack Wrote: In fact, experience is the best evidence tor the intangible. Sure it'd be great if it was duplicatable or exactly repaeatable, but that's the nature of the intangible beast.

Doesn't this suggest that that god's power is limited to human experience?

---

Even god himself?!

1- God may not be suceptable to peer review, but our observations of aspects of said idea are. Attestable to millions of Christians.
2- Humans are limited to human experience, and our perceptions within a line of space-time. The historical trek of religion, supports God's existance outside of time and therefore doesn't limit him at all.

Then considering how it's also been the trek of religion to put human's in the all superior and god likeness intellect, that should humanity not exist there would cease to knowledge of god?

(February 11, 2010 at 10:10 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- God may not be suceptable to peer review, but our observations of aspects of said idea are. Attestable to millions of Christians.
2- Humans are limited to human experience, and our perceptions within a line of space-time. The historical trek of religion, supports God's existance outside of time and therefore doesn't limit him at all.

Ad 1) Verifiable to believers only??!! That's not a fallacy but just circular, I presume?
Ad 2) WTF do you mean with historical trek of religion?

---

(February 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: So we can fabulate anything and drop the reality/sanity check of peer review?!

No. Only what logically pertains.

Where exactly do you observe logic in your fabulation?

(February 11, 2010 at 11:18 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

---

(February 10, 2010 at 3:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you saw someone come up to you and slap you in the face... you wouldn't say "I believe that person just slapped me in the face" BECAUSE that would be saying that you weren't sure. No, you'd say "I know that person just slapped me in the face". Get off your absolutes bandwagon - it doesn't apply here.

It does apply actually. I was using "knowledge" in the technical philosophical sense of course. If we are to use it in the colloquial usage like you seem to be alluding then that's way too vague - it's confusing with belief. You mean it like subjective "knowlege" as in, someone is really really sure or absolutely certain they "Know" - but that doesn't mean they really know anything because what they think they know could easily be absolute bullshit.

---

You're using knowledge to mean belief ...I'm separating the two. Let's stick with the colloquial/ standard usage then we know where we both are. If you're now saying you were using knowledge: believe a lot ..then that just muddy's the water. Same with the 'absolute' diversion. It becomes semantics.

What we need to do is focus on the problem and not get diverted. I know you love philosophy and philosophical language... I think you need to be clearer and state when you aren't using plain english in the interest of conversations getting anywhere.

(February 11, 2010 at 11:18 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

---

Quote:If you think, having never driven a car, what driving a car is like, it isn't the same as actually driving a car. People can tell you what it's like, and you can be prepared given that information.

Indeed.

Quote:Same with actually believing in God and trying to think what believing in God might be like. I can tell you how great and wonderful it is, and how everything suddenly makes sense, but you can't actually know that until you believe yourself.

How is this the same at all? Driving a car is part of the natural world than is demonsratable, naturally - and how the car works is understood by science. You wouldn't doubt all evidence like that....

God however... you've got your own personal experience to go by but he is unverifiable to others, unknowable, outside science - why don't you doubt your experience? Why don't you think that you could easily be delusional because personal experience is insufficient evidence in science let alone The Supernatural.

Why is personal experience itself evidence to you? It doesn't matter what the experiences are - why is ANY experience evidence? Surely it is completely insufficient?

That is unverifiable is a sign of weakness, not strength, is it not? And the fact that something Supernatural requires more evidence, not less, is another sign of weakness, is it not?

So false analogy I say. Riding a car is something natural that can be demonstrated and tested by science, it is verifiable. An unverifiable, personal, experience - For God's existence... is a different matter. Because it doesn't matter what the experience is - the evidence needs to be stronger than that does it not?

EvF

---

It's a metaphor is isn't supposed to be identical.

I'm talking about relating an experience to someone who has no knowledge of that experience. This is comparable to someone who believes relating the experience to someone who has no knowledge of the belief.

God isn't unknowable. We can't know everything about God is the stance.

---

(February 12, 2010 at 11:24 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Where exactly do you observe logic in your fabulation?

The peer review occurs between those sharing the same belief. We can check if what either of us concludes is in line with both our understanding, and logically conclude if either of us is acting within acceptable parameters.

When considering the root of faith, or our own faith, and our reference for that faith as inherited in biblical text.