Jump to content


Photo

Epistemology The Core Of Beliefs


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
89 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2009 - 09:13 PM

Pretty much the same as someone who presupposes no god, makes no god a presupposition without evidence and arguments, but just as a starting point?

Yes, although there's an asymmetry here. If A says "I assume God exists", and B says "I assume God does NOT exist", if God is not self-evident or logically necessary, B can at *least* appeal to the non-self-evidence of God. In terms of self-evidence or logical necessity, there is no God -- it's something that would be argued for as a conclusion.

HOWEVER:

B's proposition is illicit, too. Even if God is not self-evident, there's no necessity for a proposition like "God does NOT exist". This too can and should be denied as an axiom. As a matter of necessity, there is not disposition either way, at the very start. We begin in a state of not knowing, and propositions like that are matters to take up via investigation and contemplation.

The singular difference here is the fact that logic and science give weighty evidence for a “Causal Agent”, “Prime Mover” of all the design and life we see around us in this universe…. We choose to call Him God because He is evidenced in these observations. Evolutionists worship an unintelligent being they wish to call “Nature” or “Random Chance” so as to avoid the sum total of the whole.

View Post

The scientific method seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. That means that metaphysical propositions like "God designed the universe" or "The universe just popped into existence uncaused" or "The universe is cyclically infinite" are beyond the scope of science; it has nothing to say on the matter, because it is methodologically bound to natural explananda. This means that neither atheist nor theist gets any relief or any refutation from science on the matter of how the universe came to be.

Logic has to do with form and structure. Without being appealed to experience, it doesn't provide real knowledge. "Brute logic" doesn't tell us anything about the reality (other than, if you want to really be fastidious, that one exists, necessarily as a condition for thinking logically). Neither logic nor science have a path we can identity to building and verifying metaphysical knowledge about questions concerning the (non)existence of God, or the (non)cause of the universe.

-TS

#62 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2009 - 09:17 PM

Ikester,

I think whether Touchstone can admit to all the contradictions in the linked post below or not will be a good indicator whether he is here as a time waster or not...

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=29064

He said he would address this post but it sounds like he'll make a bunch of lame excuses rather than admit the contradictions that are apparent to all who read and think through what's said, for themselves...

View Post

Adam,

I responded at length to the post you linked:

http://www.evolution...st=20&p=29064

-TS

#63 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 April 2009 - 09:20 PM

It's real simple, Touchstone. Let's cut through the psychobabble for a moment. Do you acknowledge or deny the contradictions that I pointed out?

#64 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2009 - 09:31 PM

It's real simple, Touchstone. Let's cut through the psychobabble for a moment. Do you acknowledge or deny the contradictions that I pointed out?

View Post

What contadictions? Here's the only sentence that uses "contradiction" or "contradictions" in your post:

Though I'm not surprised that you don't understand what special pleading actually is because it's one of the mainstays of your conversations as you squirm around with long dissertations that are full of special pleading and contradictions.

(emphasis mine)

I read that as unsubstiantiated allegation(s). What do you suppose is contradictory in what I've said there?

I responded to your post, and offered a good amount of expansion and development on what I'd said earlier. You didn't respond to that post at all, so far as I know, nevermind enumerating what you suppose to be internal inconsistencies. I think that would be very fruitful to show for your readers, how Touchstone has contradicted himself. Yet you did not. I had thought explaining that a *starting point* is not an epistemology, but just a starting point, had cleared up any confusion on the matter of "agnosticism".

-TS

#65 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 April 2009 - 09:49 PM

I responded to your post, and offered a good amount of expansion and development on what I'd said earlier.

View Post

...which the majority can be chalked up as polite bilge water. You really can't give straight answers can you? Instead of looking at the one sentence where I use the word "contradiction" why not actually analyze the actual contradictions that I painstakingly cataloged for you. :rolleyes:

Look, we'll let others see if this post makes sense to them:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=29064



Dear onlookers and faithful lurkers,

Did I do a clear enough job pointing out, in the above linked post, the numerous times that Touchstone contradicted himself regarding whether agnosticism was his epistemology and what it meant to him?

Is it worth talking to someone who talks out of both sides of their mouth and can't admit it when they're caught?

Thank you in advance,
Adam

#66 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:47 PM

Adam,

I responded at length to the post you linked:

http://www.evolution...st=20&p=29064

-TS

View Post

Using the term 'respond' in a misleading manner? A meaningful response addresses the issues. Any response worth mentioning is generally expected to be meaningful. The contradictions have not been addressed at all, and that was quite a ways back.

One can respond in all sorts of ways. Silence can even be a response. Denial can be a response. Evasion, obfuscation, more-of-the-same - all can be responses. The observant reader will not have much trouble evaluating the "responses" in question. To assume anyone would is arrogant and insulting. I must admit that it's reasonable to believe some lurkers are happy to be insulted in this manner - so much the worse for them.

#67 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 May 2009 - 11:21 AM

Speaking personally, as someone who accepts the scientific worldview...

View Post

Please tell us what the scientific worldview is in this thread...

#68 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 May 2009 - 11:18 PM

One problem with vain philosophies is that they insist one must throw out what one already knows.

"I think therefore I am." Everyone already knows this. The joker who asks you to deny that you exists is a liar. He acknowledges your existence by the very act of asking. You don't ask nothing if it exists.

Throwing out everything you already know is a policy of death. The spider who accepts the suggestion will have to start all over again, and will starve to death long before establishing the technique for constructing a web. It's even worse if the spider is conned into the "prove it for 100% absolute certain to the standard of an adversarial, fauxstupid scoffer with no concern for anything but avoiding truth" game.

Shoot, prove your heart needs to beat to that standard. And do it quickly, because you have to abandon all knowledge until the scoffer admits defeat. Oh, dead already? Well, I could've told you. See what you get for playing their game?

By the time one is old enough to encounter vain philosophies, one will already have accumulated quite a bit of knowledge. People are born knowing more than meets the eye, and the very young learn so fast nobody can even describe it properly. The capacity to learn diminishes considerably with age. A man starting at age 20 would be dead before he could relearn everything he learned in the first 20 years of his life (a break-even goal). So it's impossible to beat the house playing this game.

"I know nothing - nuh-think!" is for Sgt. Schultz to say. The rest of us, we do best to acknowledge that we do know a thing or two. It isn't arrogance - it's honesty.

Beyond knowledge, what's needed is the capacity to demonstrate and explain what we know to others. It's good if we can tell another how we know what we know, so they can know it also. But if there's a way to explain something so that nobody can turn around and lie and claim not to understand it, I have not discovered that way.*

Now I think there's an abundance of information on this forum for anyone who is seeking the truth. It's really overkill. Just about everyone I know had less to go on, sciencewise. More and more evidence just keeps piling up, and more holes in the polywrong stories keep turning up all the time. One rarely witnesses such lopsided contests. Closest thing I can think of would be some of the bad Superbowls; but they were still probably more competitive than this - they only seemed equally bad because of expectations.

*But I have to admit one idea sounds promising: “Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” (Avicenna)

#69 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:17 AM

Before you get too wrapped up in your favorite dictionary definitions, have you ever thought about emergent properties?

http://plato.stanfor...rties-emergent/

Is an emergent property inherent?

View Post

Do us a favor Keith, take the ideas that you're trying to espouse here and boil them down in to as simple of terms as possible without sacrificing what you're trying to say.

Philosophy is a funny thing. Concepts can sound good until you boil them down to their key components and they implode on themselves. So tell us the key to what you're saying.

#70 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 June 2009 - 09:04 AM

Do us a favor Keith, take the ideas that you're trying to espouse here and boil them down in to as simple of terms as possible without sacrificing what you're trying to say.

Philosophy is a funny thing. Concepts can sound good until you boil them down to their key components and they implode on themselves. So tell us the key to what you're saying.

I think philosophical arguments, particularly when dependent on the definitions of words, and when framed as an either/or choice, are a particularly futile waste of time.
Probably neither alternative is the real truth.

#71 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 09:12 AM

I think philosophical arguments, particularly when dependent on the definitions of words, and when framed as an either/or choice, are a particularly futile waste of time.
Probably neither alternative is the real truth.

View Post

Hi Keith,

I moved these previous two posts here because, frankly, what you just said above is utter nonsense. Would you care to clarify this before I respond?

#72 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 12 June 2009 - 01:16 PM

I think philosophical arguments, particularly when dependent on the definitions of words, and when framed as an either/or choice, are a particularly futile waste of time.
Probably neither alternative is the real truth.

View Post


Hi keith,

Well let's see.....

Science is a philosophical argument.

It is based in logic which is 100% dependant on definitions of words.

And most scientific discovery is based on either or hypotheses....

So, can we conclude from you that science does not lead toward the real truth? :blink:

#73 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 01:28 PM

I think philosophical arguments, particularly when dependent on the definitions of words, and when framed as an either/or choice, are a particularly futile waste of time.
Probably neither alternative is the real truth.

View Post

I smell rejection of the law of non-contradiction.

#74 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 June 2009 - 07:58 PM

Hi Keith,

I moved these previous two posts here because, frankly, what you just said above is utter nonsense. Would you care to clarify this before I respond?


I think that if you move my posts, you should include the post I was replying to.

You are missing the point of your own words. If “Intelligence is an observed result” of evolution, then it is an “inherent feature” of evolution. It cannot be one, and not the other.



#75 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:22 PM

I think that if you move my posts, you should include the post I was replying to.

View Post

I had to draw the line somewhere. The link is right there for anyone wanting to go further back. It's that fancy little orange button on the right... You are more than welcome to clarify what the problem is with how I did the split, if you think clarity is needed.

That's why I gave you a chance to say something in context, and of the nature of this thread, before I dissect what you said.

#76 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 11:42 AM

Before you get too wrapped up in your favorite dictionary definitions, have you ever thought about emergent properties?

http://plato.stanfor...rties-emergent/

Is an emergent property inherent?

View Post


Hmmmmmm, yes... And this is my favorite quote from that link Keith: "Thus far, we have assumed that the concept of emergence applies to properties". Which sums it up quite nicely ;)

Also, as you cherry picked my paragraph, you should have included the the conclusion and the followup question:

You are missing the point of your own words. If “Intelligence is an observed result” of evolution, then it is an “inherent feature” of evolution. It cannot be one, and not the other. And if “natural selection” is "driven by interactions between organisms and their environment involving mutations to their genetic code", then; What drives those interactions between organisms and their environment, what drives the mutations in the genetic code, and what drives the genetic code?

View Post


A real rebuttal and answer to the question would have been nice..

One could just as easily conclude that it is the brain which ‘emerges’ from the mind since we're talking theoretical concepts. But, the bottom line is this: The brain and the mind are two different things.

And, by the way, that is nowhere near my favorite dictionary definitions. I have many-many more that are near and dear to my heart. But, that one was most applicable to the comments context. And, instead of letting the misapplication take root, I corrected it. Its like pulling weeds before they take over the lawn :D

#77 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 11:58 AM

I smell rejection of the law of non-contradiction.

View Post



Good nose CTD

#78 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2009 - 10:55 AM

I was searching for a talk done by Bruce Little that I downloaded a while ago. During my search I stumbled on to another talk that I haven't finished yet but while I'm listening to it and I'm deciding to download it because it's shaping up to be a great talk:

http://bethinking.or...require-warrant

#79 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:54 AM

Hi keith,

Well let's see.....

Science is a philosophical argument.

It is based in logic which is 100% dependant on definitions of words.

And most scientific discovery is based on either or hypotheses....

So, can we conclude from you that science does not lead toward the real truth? :)

View Post


Hi performage,

Excellent points.

What you are replying to is a trick (or misunderstanding) used by atheistic materialists to pretend that logic and philosophy aren’t parts of science. What they fail to realize is the historical, logical and philosophical flaw in their argument. Science is a derivative of logic, and philosophy. Science cannot be science without them. But the materialists will work them selves into a lather attempting to escape that very fact.

Basically, they’ll attempt to use logic and reasoning to disprove logic and reasoning. They’ll philosophize on the ills of philosophy, while all the time not realizing (or simply denying) that they’re philosophizing!

#80 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:40 AM

I guess my main contention is the usage of epistemology.  Not that you are using it wrong, but that after reading up on it a little on wiki that it seems to be a lot of hogwash.

View Post

Please, go on...

View Post

Sure! Link to wiki for reference.

Okay so Epistemology ask these questions:

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?

I don't have any issues here. These are good questions to ask.

But why does it go into beliefs right after this? Can you consider beliefs to be 'knowledge'? If you don't 'know' something can you call it knowledge?

I think this is a good place to start. Adam, what are your thoughts on beliefs, if they can be considered knowledge?

View Post

I want to see if we can rejuvenate this thread with some more civil discussion.

Java, regarding beliefs; Beliefs are inseparably tied to what you do with perceived knowledge and the assumptions that are necessary and reasonable, and which when explained are often laughably obvious, regarding truth. The problem is that many people are lead astray by vein philosophies that actually violate these laughably obvious concepts regarding truth.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users