Evidence for Believing

[Inqwizitor]

What you are saying is but this:


Because means of clearly defined methods of truth finding that has demonstrated efficacy and  reliability does not point to what you like be true,  you will assert means demonstrated to be unreliable to now be now reliable so you can pretend what you like to be true is indeed true.

I'm saying that I accept the possibility there are truths I cannot find with my clearly defined and limited methods, because the efficacy of those methods demonstrate the reliability of the rational basis that points me to that possibility, so I assent to proposed truths in that realm of possibility that are consistent with and enlightening of my demonstrated understanding.

[Anomalocaris]

What you are saying is but this:


Because means of clearly defined methods of truth finding that has demonstrated efficacy and  reliability does not point to what you like be true,  you will assert means demonstrated to be unreliable to now be now reliable so you can pretend what you like to be true is indeed true.

I'm saying that I accept the possibility there are truths I cannot find with my clearly defined and limited methods, because the efficacy of those methods demonstrate the reliability of the rational basis that points me to that possibility, so I assent to proposed truths in that realm of possibility that are consistent with and enlightening of my demonstrated understanding.

No one denies there can be truth which you can not find.   One merely denies you found the truths which you can not find.

A means of truth finding that is not clearly defined and testable for its efficacy is the indistinguishable from bullshit and therefore not by any worthy definition any means of truth finding.

So you are saying the highest form of overarching truth is any form of bullshit so long as someone really wants that bullshit to be true.

[Inqwizitor]

No, a "supernatural cause" actually doesn't do anything by itself.    All it does in the hands of the person who asserted it is to let that person shout down the possibility of examining the so called "revealed truth" by more demonstrably reliable yardsticks to determine whether it is likely to be true or not.

The supernatural is an explanation for something that those demonstrably reliable yardsticks ascertain but cannot explain, not because it requires more observation and expansion of knowledge, but because it has no observable cause and cannot be known.

It does not open up any possibility whatsoever of getting closer to any sort of truth which could be verified by means less flawed than a person's fervent wish for something to be true.

It opens up the possibility of getting us closer to the sort of truth that we cannot empirically verify but is beneficial to our well-being and conforms with all human means of knowing objective reality.

[Anomalocaris]

No, a "supernatural cause" actually doesn't do anything by itself.    All it does in the hands of the person who asserted it is to let that person shout down the possibility of examining the so called "revealed truth" by more demonstrably reliable yardsticks to determine whether it is likely to be true or not.

The supernatural is an explanation for something that those demonstrably reliable yardsticks ascertain but cannot explain, not because it requires more observation and expansion of knowledge, but because it has no observable cause and cannot be known.

It does not open up any possibility whatsoever of getting closer to any sort of truth which could be verified by means less flawed than a person's fervent wish for something to be true.

It opens up the possibility of getting us closer to the sort of truth that we cannot empirically verify but is beneficial to our well-being and conforms with all human means of knowing objective reality.

How do you know, given an continuous history of ever expanding knowledge base explaining every more of the hitherto inexplicable, what can not be explained in principle can not be explained?

Any bullshit has a possibility, but only the most infinitesimal one,  of actually being closer to the truth than we could otherwise reach. .    Your "supernatural" is still indistinguishable both in its nature and in its effects from bullshit.   It has no more possibility of being true than any bullshit.      You merely combine egoism with idiocy so unselfconsciously that you could assert with a straight face bullshit that appeals to you is better than bullshit of other kind.

[Inqwizitor]

No one denies there can be truth which you can not find.   One merely denies you found the truths which you can not find.

Right, but that's back to the possibility of revelation.

A means of truth finding that is not clearly defined and testable for its efficacy is the indistinguishable from bullshit and therefore not by any worthy definition any means of truth finding.

Bullshit can contradict known facts or be illogical, and implies something insincere or contrived.

A revealed truth is a clearly defined proposition that can be tested with methods of truth finding, whether it contradicts known facts. Demanding a test for efficacy of a truth is declaring that all truth is a directly observable fact.

So you are saying the highest form of overarching truth is any form of bullshit so long as someone really wants that bullshit to be true.

No, I'm saying there is truth that does not contradict any of our logical or empirical means of truth finding but is not attainable by those means.

[The Grand Nudger]

If god isn't helpful here, Inq, then you've undercut the entire premise of rationality and ontological argument. We could certainly agree to proceed as though the bare assertion of some simple x were true, but since you've already declared that this simple x isn't a god, god being reducible, there's no point.

Another poster already offered a candidate for that simple x. Existence. This never really escaped attention. Even by christian theologians, who declared god the ground of being for precisely this reason.

...and we're still just rolling around on the floating turd of "there's stuff we don't know"...............? Sure, why not. Is any of that stuff god stuff? If not, who cares?

[Inqwizitor]

How do you know, given an continuous history of ever expanding knowledge base explaining every more of the hitherto inexplicable, what can not be explained in principle can not be explained?

Because we are limited beings with particular powers of perception in an ever-expanding environment. There is truth that we cannot observe our way to because of our limited perception, and truths we cannot logically prove because the parameters of observable reality are not set in an axiomatic system.

Any bullshit has a possibility, but only the most infinitesimal one,  of actually being closer to the truth than we could otherwise reach. .    Your "supernatural" is still indistinguishable both in its nature and in its effects from bullshit.   It has no more possibility of being true than any bullshit.      You merely combine egoism with idiocy so unselfconsciously that you could assert with a straight face bullshit that appeals to you is better than bullshit of other kind.

If I thought it was bullshit, I wouldn't believe it. So you can be sure that I'm sincere and not trying to assert some egotistical or elitist secret knowledge. Not everything that we cannot directly prove to everyone else is bullshit, and something that is consistent with facts and logic is less likely to be bullshit than something that is not.

[The Grand Nudger]

26 pages in and all we have is an ad pop and an argument from ignorance.

Raaa-tion-alll!

[Inqwizitor]

If god isn't helpful here, Inq, then you've undercut the entire premise of rationality and ontological argument.  We could certainly agree to proceed as though the bare assertion of some simple x were true, but since you've already declared that this simple x isn't a god, god being reducible, there's no point.

Another poster already offered a candidate for that simple x.  Existence.  This never really escaped attention.  Even by christian theologians, who declared god the ground of being for precisely this reason.  

...and we're still just rolling around on the floating turd of "there's stuff we don't know"...............?  Sure, why not.  Is any of that stuff god stuff?  If not, who cares?

We can logically argue about whether reality ends in a brute fact or not. As for my faith, I can't logically prove that, but I can defend it from contentions that it's indistinguishable from any bullshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suspect your ability in that regard is on par with your alleged rationality.

-but ofc I'm game. Go ahead. Distinguish your faith from any old bullshit.