No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Grand Nudger]

Empirical detection doesn't require "mind-o-meters".  As I've previously opined on, people don't seem to know what empiricism is. Do you experience your own mind? Congratulations, that's empirical detection. The simple fact that you detect your own mind puts it in the "physics" set, rather than the hypothetical and still empty "metaphysics" set.

[possibletarian]

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.

All you seem to do is quote some other 'cleverer person than yourself' who by the way has been unable to convince you, and then suggest we take it seriously as a method to gain knowledge of god.  

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

Oh stop it, It's a forum these things happen to a degree, someone not agreeing with you is not persecution, and neither are you persecuting anyone, you have to expect a little frustration on both sides I suggest you grow a thicker skin. 

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

But we are willing to change our minds, to explore if metaphysics, logical arguments call it what you will can solve this issue, and after a few centuries they have been unable to convince you, a disciple of these methods. If you believe people a lot smarter than you have solved the problem then why withhold belief ?

Just because we are unconvinced both on the reliability of it's method and it's results does not mean you have to be, if you think we don't understand, or have misrepresented something, point that out with more than a 'you don't understand' or 'really smart people have said this or that'. You are being so vague and evasive in everything you say, maybe take a stance (even if only playing devils advocate) then see how we go from there.

[LadyForCamus]

Empirical detection doesn't require "mind-o-meters".  As I've previously opined on, people don't seem to know what empiricism is. Do you experience your own mind?  Congratulations, that's empirical detection.  The simple fact that you detect your own mind puts it in the "physics" set, rather than the hypothetical and still empty "metaphysics" set.

I did respond to your last response in our Devil’s Advocate faux debate, Gae. Just in case you missed it, I didn’t want you to think I had abandoned the dialogue. 🙂

[LadyForCamus]

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.

If there is truly no way to detect these things (and I’m not so sure about that), how on earth could we ever know that they’re real?

[The Grand Nudger]

Empirical detection doesn't require "mind-o-meters".  As I've previously opined on, people don't seem to know what empiricism is. Do you experience your own mind?  Congratulations, that's empirical detection.  The simple fact that you detect your own mind puts it in the "physics" set, rather than the hypothetical and still empty "metaphysics" set.

I did respond to your last response in our Devil’s Advocate faux debate, Gae. Just in case you missed it, I didn’t want you to think I had abandoned the dialogue. 🙂

Ill get to it, friday night, drinking and playing with my beagle, lol.

[LadyForCamus]

I did respond to your last response in our Devil’s Advocate faux debate, Gae. Just in case you missed it, I didn’t want you to think I had abandoned the dialogue. 🙂

Ill get to it, friday night, drinking and playing with my beagle, lol.

Noice!  Don't hurry to do any extra thinking on my account! Drink one for me!

[LadyForCamus]

@Lady Camus

"Because 'nothing' is logically impossible as a state of being, by its definition."

I'm not sure I understand.

My understanding is that a logical impossibility does not necessarily refer to reality. It's also an unfalsifiable statement, as much as is the existence of god.

I don't believe in gods, and a bunch of other things, including my survival after death, due to a lack of empirical proof..    I can't prove that, nor do I need to, not having made  claim.

Are you saying that individual oblivion is a logical contradiction, or simply that  the absence of an undefined 'something' is a logical contradiction?

I don't understand how to relate your claim to my reality .  

My position is summed up pithily on a  Roman tomb on the Via Apia not far from Rome:

" I was not
 I was
 I am not
 I don't care"

I only had a year of philosophy. Never came across this notion. Just as well, it's doing my head in

Could you possibly explain the basis for this claim, and why it matters, in that it is unfalsifiable ?

Plus, of course the method you used to arrive at such a conclusion.,and of course what makes your inference true.

I'd be most grateful if you use small words; I looked this up on Wikipedia, and couldn't follow the language.

Apologies, Freddy.

Allow me to explain.  I didn't do a very good job the first time. It's kind of a hard thing to communicate, not because it's some highly complex concept, but just because the vocabulary is clumsy:

Theists often ask, why is there something instead of nothing? Let's break this question down a little bit. It could be worded like this: "why are we in a state of things existing, versus a state of no things at all existing?" My response is, what possible state could be a state of no things existing? By it's very definition, any state that is any kind of thing, is some thing.  Do you follow me? A state of non-existence can't be an alternative to a state of existence, because non-existence can't be anything.  If there was nothing, instead of something...then it wouldn't be nothing, would it? It would be something. Even saying, "instead of something, there was nothing, is logically contradictory. "Was" is a tense of "being".  Like I said, it's kind of convoluted to describe, or maybe I just really suck at it. Probably the latter. But the long and short of it is, we are in a state of existence because there is no logical alternative. “Nothing” was never an option, therefore, reality exists because it has to. 

I don't know if I've cleared my position up, or hopelessly confused you, lol. If its the latter, I apologize. Benny could probably do a much clearer, and more succinct job! Bear in mind, this is all just philosophical, mental masturbation. I can't demonstrate it. It's just something I think about.

[Belacqua]

By reality, I mean, that which is real.

For the third time, there is no secret magical way. We get ideas about what is real by thinking.

For the second time, we only know things through thinking -- memory, interpretation, plugging new data into existing theories. 

Some of the things we think can be given greater credence through empirical evidence and some of it can't. The former is science and the latter is metaphysics, generally speaking. 

Are these reliable? The former is sometimes reliable, if it isn't funded by Monsanto.

The latter may be less reliable, though people tend to form a consensus. 

As I've said many times, I remain skeptical and withhold certainty about metaphysical claims. That's why I try to look at alternatives. 

Some people, though, are very sure that their unprovable metaphysical claims are true. For example, someone who said that science is the only way to know reality, would be sure of her metaphysical claim. Because  there is no scientific way to prove that only science tells about reality, it is metaphysical thinking to believe that. So you are certain of your metaphysics, while I remain skeptical. 

As for your question about which other forums I look at, I'll answer even though you have ignored my similar questions to you. I look at two blogs run by theist philosophers. One is a personal blog and one is more like this one, only dedicated to philosophical questions. I seldom post on those because the level of discussion is very high.

---

All you seem to do is quote some other 'cleverer person than yourself' who by the way has been unable to convince you, and then suggest we take it seriously as a method to gain knowledge of god.  

I didn't realize we were in a hurry. The arguments are difficult and people tend to misunderstand them. I think science people should be more comfortable saying "I don't know."

Oh stop it, It's a forum these things happen to a degree, someone not agreeing with you is not persecution, and neither are you persecuting anyone, you have to expect a little frustration on both sides I suggest you grow a thicker skin. 

There's a difference between disagreement to further the conversation and insults to shut it down. 

You are being so vague and evasive in everything you say, maybe take a stance (even if only playing devils advocate) then see how we go from there.

I have tried to be as clear as possible. Maybe I'm talking about one thing and you'd like me to talk about another.

[LadyForCamus]

By reality, I mean, that which is real.

For the third time, there is no secret magical way. We get ideas about what is real by thinking.

For the second time, we only know things through thinking -- memory, interpretation, plugging new data into existing theories. 

Some of the things we think can be given greater credence through empirical evidence and some of it can't. The former is science and the latter is metaphysics, generally speaking. 

Are these reliable? The former is sometimes reliable, if it isn't funded by Monsanto.

The latter may be less reliable, though people tend to form a consensus. 

As I've said many times, I remain skeptical and withhold certainty about metaphysical claims. That's why I try to look at alternatives. 

Some people, though, are very sure that their unprovable metaphysical claims are true. For example, someone who said that science is the only way to know reality, would be sure of her metaphysical claim. Because  there is no scientific way to prove that only science tells about reality, it is metaphysical thinking to believe that. So you are certain of your metaphysics, while I remain skeptical. 

As for your question about which other forums I look at, I'll answer even though you have ignored my similar questions to you. I look at two blogs run by theist philosophers. One is a personal blog and one is more like this one, only dedicated to philosophical questions. I seldom post on those because the level of discussion is very high.

I have no idea what question you’re referring to that you claim I haven’t answered.  I assure you it was not intentional. I don’t post on Christian forums, if that’s what you asked me. My mind is open. When someone can show me a way to answers for metaphysical claims that is as wonderfully reliable as the scientific method has been for scientific claims, I’ll start getting to work. Until then, all I see is people saying things like, “I just know”, and “it’s just obvious.”  Those answers carry zero explanatory power. They’re assertions that I have no way of verifying are correct.

[Belacqua]

 “I just know”, and “it’s just obvious.”  Those answers carry zero explanatory power. They’re assertions.

And that's why I'm skeptical of your metaphysical assertion that science is the ONLY way to know things. You can't prove it.