Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 12:43 am
(November 28, 2017 at 12:37 am)Hammy Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 12:29 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Well you still have reason... and also, most of the evidence I see referred to by Christians is physical, so I don’t see where what you said follows.
How can you have physical evidence of something non-physical?
And, no, you can't have reason to believe in something without evidence.
If there is physical interaction where is the problem.... this is your claim to support.
And are you against logic?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 12:50 am
No I'm not against logic but God is non-physical so having physical evidence of him makes no sense. Are you against logic?
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 12:54 am
(November 28, 2017 at 12:50 am)Hammy Wrote: No I'm not against logic but God is non-physical so having physical evidence of him makes no sense. Are you against logic?
Ok..direct evidence sure.... I don’t think that by one is claiming that at least from the Judea/Christian view that evidence is a piece of God in a test tube.
No I’m not against logic.... and I think that logic can give you reason to believe...
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 3:02 am
(November 28, 2017 at 12:54 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 12:50 am)Hammy Wrote: No I'm not against logic but God is non-physical so having physical evidence of him makes no sense. Are you against logic?
Ok..direct evidence sure.... I don’t think that by one is claiming that at least from the Judea/Christian view that evidence is a piece of God in a test tube.
Whether direct or indirect is irrelevant. We are physical beings and you've already accepted the fact the evidence therefore has to be physical. But if the evidence has to be physical then it can't be evidence of anything non-physical because even any 'indirect' signs that were left over, would be left over in the physical world we live in, and detectable by our physical senses, thereby not being evidence of anything non-physical at all.
Quote:No I’m not against logic.... and I think that logic can give you reason to believe...
Arguments have to be related to something in the real world to have anything that bears with reality though. You can make a valid argument about imaginary entities but you'll be missing soundness.
Posts: 63
Threads: 3
Joined: November 5, 2017
Reputation:
5
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 5:55 am
(November 28, 2017 at 12:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 12:04 am)curiosne Wrote: so how do you determine if you have sufficient evidence to believe in a claim or not?
I don’t understand, it’s not like I am saying that there is no line to be drawn. Where do you think that there is an issue.
I'm confused with your replies but maybe it's just me. Are you saying that there is a line that you would draw between low to high epistemic burden but that line would vary between you and me?
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 8:55 am
(November 28, 2017 at 5:55 am)curiosne Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 12:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don’t understand, it’s not like I am saying that there is no line to be drawn. Where do you think that there is an issue.
I'm confused with your replies but maybe it's just me. Are you saying that there is a line that you would draw between low to high epistemic burden but that line would vary between you and me?
I think it is the low and high epistemic burden that is confusing you, and I don't know where you are getting that from in my view.
Take your money example.... I don't believe there is a lower and higher sliding scale. I think that there is a reasonable requirement to believe that you have X number of dollars. If everything else is equal (no reason to doubt), I don't think that it matters what X is. Perhaps it is the variance, that I was talking about, that is confusing though. With this, I'm just saying, that I think there is some room for disagreement on what exactly the standard of measure should be (we can forget this for now, if it helps). So take the other example, the claim that I have X living in my garage. If X is a cat, then you might be more willing to make assumptions and accept my claim. However you really have little more epistemic reason to do so. The question I believe is what is required to know, that a claim of X is living in my garage. And when dealing with epistemology, I don't' think you are just talking about simply believing, but justified belief or knowing. And there is some confusion there.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 67210
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 8:56 am
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 8:56 am by The Grand Nudger.)
He is, he simply doesn't want to acknowledge that his idea of an epistemic burden is higher for Abaddons cat than it is for magic book's god, because that would sound silly. 
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 2872
Threads: 8
Joined: October 4, 2017
Reputation:
22
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 12:35 pm
(November 28, 2017 at 12:29 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 12:25 am)Hammy Wrote: Then isn't debating it utterly futile if is belief in God is therefore by definition irrational? 
Well you still have reason... and also, most of the evidence I see referred to by Christians is physical, so I don’t see where what you said follows.
Wait, what?
Do please share this physical evidence for god, any god. I'm ecumenical.
Posts: 2872
Threads: 8
Joined: October 4, 2017
Reputation:
22
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 3:50 pm
(November 27, 2017 at 10:01 pm)Khemikal Wrote: (November 27, 2017 at 8:16 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Nope. RR79 considers god to be equivalent with my cat at this point Well, except for the fact that he doesn't believe in your cat....................... 
I do not own the cat. When I bought my current abode, the realtor neglected to mention it. 
Posts: 63
Threads: 3
Joined: November 5, 2017
Reputation:
5
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 28, 2017 at 9:11 pm
(November 28, 2017 at 8:55 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 5:55 am)curiosne Wrote: I'm confused with your replies but maybe it's just me. Are you saying that there is a line that you would draw between low to high epistemic burden but that line would vary between you and me?
I think it is the low and high epistemic burden that is confusing you, and I don't know where you are getting that from in my view.
Take your money example.... I don't believe there is a lower and higher sliding scale. I think that there is a reasonable requirement to believe that you have X number of dollars. If everything else is equal (no reason to doubt), I don't think that it matters what X is. Perhaps it is the variance, that I was talking about, that is confusing though. With this, I'm just saying, that I think there is some room for disagreement on what exactly the standard of measure should be (we can forget this for now, if it helps). So take the other example, the claim that I have X living in my garage. If X is a cat, then you might be more willing to make assumptions and accept my claim. However you really have little more epistemic reason to do so. The question I believe is what is required to know, that a claim of X is living in my garage. And when dealing with epistemology, I don't' think you are just talking about simply believing, but justified belief or knowing. And there is some confusion there.
Right, thanks for the clarification. So in the example with the variance of x number of dollars, I understand that there will always be disagreements with the standard of measure between us, for each of us to get a justified belief in the variance. All I wanted to know though, was what your standard of measure is to get a justified belief in a claim.
We can then use your standard between us to talk about other beliefs otherwise we will be arguing on two fronts, both what the standard should be (I am fine to use yours) and also whether a belief is justified (which is what I'm interested in). This is why I'm trying to understand your standard of measure even though you say that it's hard to draw a line.
Are you able to briefly explain your standard of measure even though it might be hard to pinpoint the exact nature of it?
|
