Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 17, 2017 at 10:30 am)Drich Wrote: If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim? That's kinda how things work in court. why would this be any different? Oh, that's right your not smart enough to understand you are not arguing the typical metaphysical argument, based on intangible fact. Or rather you are trying to make my argument fit the intangible argument you are so use to defending.
Drich, suppose you knew nothing about hallucinogenics.
Suppose I gave you some instructions detailing that you had to take a particular pill and that was enough for you to experience the hidden world. The world under our own, the meta-world.
You'd follow instructions and find yourself in such a world.
(March 17, 2017 at 10:30 am)Drich Wrote: If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim? That's kinda how things work in court. why would this be any different? Oh, that's right your not smart enough to understand you are not arguing the typical metaphysical argument, based on intangible fact. Or rather you are trying to make my argument fit the intangible argument you are so use to defending.
Drich, suppose you knew nothing about hallucinogenics.
Suppose I gave you some instructions detailing that you had to take a particular pill and that was enough for you to experience the hidden world. The world under our own, the meta-world.
You'd follow instructions and find yourself in such a world.
Does that make that meta-world real?
Look real close at the terms and phrases you've decided to use in relation to the question you asked.
You've answered yourself.
Besides, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Do you remember the matrix? Do you remember Morpheus trying to explain to neo what the matrix was for the first time? He asks "what is real." @50 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGZiLMGdCE0
"Real is perception, it is nothing more that our interpretation of a series of electrical inputs from our senses."
IF you could accurately document the LSD world, and to one extent or another everyone who entered that world experience the same things under the same conditions. then even if the senses were altered, while in that altered state, those imputs would indeed be 'real' while in that state.
That what the Bible offers. It offers to put you the individual in front of the same God I was sat in front of.
Where you are comparing apples and oranges is the Meta-world can not be documented, and the bible does not need one to be in a meta state.
(March 17, 2017 at 10:56 am)pocaracas Wrote: Drich, suppose you knew nothing about hallucinogenics.
Suppose I gave you some instructions detailing that you had to take a particular pill and that was enough for you to experience the hidden world. The world under our own, the meta-world.
You'd follow instructions and find yourself in such a world.
Does that make that meta-world real?
Look real close at the terms and phrases you've decided to use in relation to the question you asked.
You've answered yourself.
Besides, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Do you remember the matrix? Do you remember Morpheus trying to explain to neo what the matrix was for the first time? He asks "what is real." @50 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGZiLMGdCE0
"Real is perception, it is nothing more that our interpretation of a series of electrical inputs from our senses."
IF you could accurately document the LSD world, and to one extent or another everyone who entered that world experience the same things under the same conditions. then even if the senses were altered, while in that altered state, those imputs would indeed be 'real' while in that state.
That what the Bible offers. It offers to put you the individual in front of the same God I was sat in front of.
Where you are comparing apples and oranges is the Meta-world can not be documented, and the bible does not need one to be in a meta state.
Luckily, I disagree with Morpheus there.
Real is what reality is. Whatever it is.
Our perception is our decoding of how our sensors perceive reality.
In the matrix, that perception bypasses the sensors and is supplied false sensory data.
Just like when you're in an altered state, brought on by that pill I mentioned, or by whatever happened to you that brought about that dream of yours.
I know you weren't exactly a healthy person, so I can't begin to imagine what cocktail you had coursing through your brain when that happened... but it does seem to me like this is a more likely option than the "meta-world" actually existing and you experienced it, as I'm not going down the solipsist road.
(March 17, 2017 at 10:30 am)Drich Wrote: Speaking to Allah is not necessarily elevating above Muhammed in Islam,
Actually it does as Muhammad got his directives fro the arch angel Michael, as he was too 'impure' to Speak to Allah Himself. If a muslim says they speak with Allah, then that means their spiritual pueity is greater than the PROPHET Muhammad.
It's when I see posts like this about angels that I can almost understand the depth of delusion. Almost.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:Yes, I agree that an arguement or scientific model is only as good as it'a foundation. That does nothing to support the claim, that only emperical evidence is established as said flundation.
Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported? How do you evaluate non-empirical evidence without appealing to empirical methods?
For example, my personal observations of a unknown animal are empirical, but to be established as a foundation for a conclusion, more is needed: other people observing the same creature and taking pictures of it helps, but without a specimen to study and confirm that it is, in fact, a heretofore un-catalogued species, it's not going to be generally accepted as well-supported. The evidence that has been gathered is not conclusive if it doesn't include a specimen or equivalent evidence (maybe if I videoed it close up with someone else videoing me videoing it, and we also got a DNA sample).
For an example, you seem to want to establish a foundation for a conclusion here, and haven't offered any empirical evidence for said conclusion (really no arguments either unless I missed something). Jehanne recently posted in the William Lane Craig, stating that a singularity contains actual infinities (Perhaps I am making an assumption, but I don't believe this was from any direct observation).
See here
(March 17, 2017 at 9:11 am)Jehanne Wrote:
(March 17, 2017 at 4:17 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think it matters.
It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with. He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.
I would hope that you take the time to read the RationalWiki article. Craig is just woefully ignorant and he appears that he wants to remain that way, no doubt to continue the stream of income that he is receiving from his "ministry". Let's take just one example of Craig's foolishness. Craig claims that "actual infinities" are an absurdity in Nature, and yet, he will cite singularity theorems to bolster his first cause argument, not telling his ignorant evangelical audiences that a singularity, in physics, is an actual infinite, where the equations go to an infinite space-time curvature.
Craig can't have it both ways; either actual infinities exist, or the singularity theorems/results are telling physicists something (that, by the way, they already know!), namely, that General Relativity, as a theory, is incomplete at extreme energies and/or distances.
Maybe Alex can fill us in with more details?!
Now a certain blogger observed this argument for actual infinities mostly comes from Atheist YouTuber experts (which he charitably described as "vibrant to say the least). And as I mentioned before, evidence of absence, is a logical claim. While it does require some observation, it's foundation is logic. As to how to handle non-emperical evidence. I would say that according to the respective category. For the subject in question, that would be the rules of logic.
As to your last paragraph I don't see how that is on topic, I'm not nearly so strict. I think that the evidence only needs to be sufficient, and would normally look for some type of corroborating evidence.
I'm personally not entirely convinced by the idea that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", if that makes you feel any better. I've tried to work with it and it still seems a bit shaky to me.
(March 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm)Jesster Wrote: I'm personally not entirely convinced by the idea that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", if that makes you feel any better. I've tried to work with it and it still seems a bit shaky to me.
"Absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence".
The former is saying that evidence for it is simply absent.
The latter is saying that if the claim is true a certain evidence should be present, and it is not. This requires a deductive arguement.
(March 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm)Jesster Wrote: I'm personally not entirely convinced by the idea that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", if that makes you feel any better. I've tried to work with it and it still seems a bit shaky to me.
"Absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence".
The former is saying that evidence for it is simply absent.
The latter is saying that if the claim is true a certain evidence should be present, and it is not. This requires a deductive arguement.
I get what the argument is. I'm trying to throw you a bone here.
March 17, 2017 at 9:20 pm (This post was last modified: March 17, 2017 at 9:20 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(March 17, 2017 at 10:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported?
Other minds - There is no empirical evidence to suggest anyone else has consciousness and yet most people believe they are not alone.
(March 17, 2017 at 10:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported?
Other minds - There is no empirical evidence to suggest anyone else has consciousness
Except for all the other people acting as though they have consciousness, you mean.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
