Noah's Ark

[PKT_VOL]

Oh, and for the record, prove that statement. You know... Since you're all "scientific" and all. And since you don't operate on unproven, untested, a priori, metaphysical beliefs.

All I know is the information which comes through my senses. My senses are fallible, therefore, I cannot possibly ever hope to have knowledge of absolute truth outside of myself.

Very simple.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nobody can prove that there isn't supernatural deity. But that same token, no one can prove that there is a supernatural deity.

I have never ran from the fact that I am a man of faith. I am glad that you have finally made such an admission. Kudos. :hi:

You can't prove (in your sense of the word) the spaghetti flying monster doesn't exist, that unicorns don't exist, that I am not God, that Descartes' great Deceiver doesn't exists.

I don't have to believe it either; just as you don't have to believe in my faith. If my investigation of universe led me to believe any of those things, I would seek to defend the rationality of those beliefs. I don't. So I won't.

All you get from this is a retreat to skepticism which envelopes everything including your religion.

I get much more from this. I get you, in opening this post, admitting that you are a person of faith.

Again... Kudos for the intellectual honesty. Finally...

One assumes such a thing. It certainly doesn't prove sh*t with your skepticism.

I have not once tried to prove that I am right. I believe your expletives are misplaced, unless you're just seeking to show that you can't find a better way of getting your point across.

Spiritual knowledge is just a posteriori knowledge from various "spiritual" influence in your life (parents, religious leader, etc) and the Bible (for you, other religious texts for others). It is not its own type of knowledge.

OK, Mr. "I have no a priori, unproven beliefs"... Prove that. I mean, you all scientific and all. So, prove that. My worldview predicts that I would have access to knowledge that I didn't have beforehand, and not passed down from people in my life. My belief said, 2000 years before I was born, that it would come straight from the spiritual realm, and implanted straight into a new, spiritually alive part of me.

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

So, I am not retreating into skepticism. I am rushing headlong into reality as I live it.

It is you that retreats into skepticism. So short of a priori, unproven, fallacies from incredulity, tell me why you are right and I am wrong.

(You see? It is a difference of worldviews. You have faith in what you can not prove. I have faith in what I have experienced, yet can not prove to you. I'm cool with that.)

 

[Orange_Crush]

All I know is the information which comes through my senses.

But... Wait... Then... You made an a priori statement while denying that you were making a priori statements. I am so confused and disappointed that I have been lied to all along by an anonymous person on a football forum.

Unless, that is, the fact that "knowledge of absolute truth by humans is impossible" has been experienced by your admittedly flawed senses.

Has that happened?

My senses are fallible, therefore, I cannot possibly ever hope to have knowledge of absolute truth outside of myself.

Very simple.

It seems, if you can't really trust your senses, then you should, in fact retreat to a total skepticism. I'll throw a larger monkey wrench in for you.

If your entire rationality is the product of blind chance and meaningless processes, then why should you trust that you are even a rational being? If your ability to interpret reality around you is the result of blind chance, then what makes you think that you can trust anything that you interpret from reality?

I'll paraphrase Darwin: If your rationality is the product of monkeys, why would you trust anything you think any more than anything a monkey would tell you?

I would think, with the underpinnings of your philosophy, the 'rationality' needed in science would be the furthest thing you'd pursue.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Thank you sir.

Yes sir. My pleasure. :hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

The main definition (independent of experience) and the one that is prudent given the skepticism you are invoking with evidence, proof, experience, etc.

Prudent? Who is to define "prudent"? Shall we remain with one, agreed definition, so as not to equivocate?

Independent of experience...


Have you experienced:

That material is all that exists...

That the natural is all that exists...

That the supernatural is completely unknowable by natural means...

That the only valid form of knowledge is that which is or can be empirically proven...

That no human can have ultimate truth...

(I'm sure there were more, but I'll leave it here for now since I have a Christmas meal awaiting me... :hi

Oh, and real quickly... Your addition of "prudence" seems a bit disingenuous within the standard of empiricism: i.e. that which must be proven empirically. You seem to be a very confused-- on one hand adhering to empiricism, and then redefining things for yourself by some subjective "prudence"...)

 

[PKT_VOL]

I have never ran from the fact that I am a man of faith. I am glad that you have finally made such an admission. Kudos. :hi:

You act like this a new revelation. I have always stated this. You are just late to the party.

I don't have to believe it either; just as you don't have to believe in my faith. If my investigation of universe led me to believe any of those things, I would seek to defend the rationality of those beliefs. I don't. So I won't.

Where we disagree, as I have said in the previous post, is that not all theories are equal.

I get much more from this. I get you, in opening this post, admitting that you are a person of faith.

Again... Kudos for the intellectual honesty. Finally...

Again, your being a smartass. I have always been intellectually honest.

I have not once tried to prove that I am right. I believe your expletives are misplaced, unless you're just seeking to show that you can't find a better way of getting your point across.

**** is just another word. There was no profanity addressed to you. The point stands.

OK, Mr. "I have no a priori, unproven beliefs"... Prove that. I mean, you all scientific and all. So, prove that. My worldview predicts that I would have access to knowledge that I didn't have beforehand, and not passed down from people in my life. My belief said, 2000 years before I was born, that it would come straight from the spiritual realm, and implanted straight into a new, spiritually alive part of me.

It is quite simple. You would not have your belief-set if you had never been exposed to the Bible, the Gospel, or any Christianity religion of any kind. Those are all a posteriori knowledge. You can say that you have gleaned spiritual knowledge from those experiences, but that is not what you are saying.

If it wasn't a posteriori knowledge and imparted upon your soul (every human soul regardless of experience), then the whole world would be Christian. There would be no other religions (also based on other a posteriori knowledge) and no controversy over whether those who have not heard the Gospel going to hell.

So, I am not retreating into skepticism. I am rushing headlong into reality as I live it.

It is you that retreats into skepticism. So short of a priori, unproven, fallacies from incredulity, tell me why you are right and I am wrong.

Good lord. Talk about intellectually dishonest.

You shredded scientific thought/non believing based on the logically valid concept of skepticism. The concept has been around a very long time. Anyone who knows philosophy, and hence skepticism, know that one cannot trust their senses. However, they are all we have. Thus, on some level, we are forced to put trust/faith in them. Further, beyond that, one has to have faith in the various frameworks/paradigms which we view the world. All that is simple.

Where you are going wrong is thinking that all faith and theories are equal. They are not. We have changed the word through science and the scientific process. That is exactly what it is, a process. Being that science through invention/discovery find things that change the paradigm (Kuhn), supersede/discredit outdated theories, the process never ends and it is never at absolute truth (been wrong a hell of a lot, it is wrong now, and will be wrong in the future).

Faith in the scientific process is not the same as the faith in the flying spaghetti monster, faith in Allah, faith in the Roman Gods, faith in the Greek Gods, faith in pseudoscience, etc. The scientific process operates on testable and falsifiable hypotheses. That is what distinguishes the scientific process from everything else. As a result, our knowledge of the world and quality of life has greatly increased throughout the ages. The only part of religion that fits the bill is the testable/falsifiable parts of the scripture; the age of the Earth, global floods, etc. All the rest is untestable/not falsifiable claims written thousands of years ago by man and edited/translated many times since. Thus far, the literal interpretation of scripture has not done well in that arena.

 

[PKT_VOL]

But... Wait... Then... You made an a priori statement while denying that you were making a priori statements. I am so confused and disappointed that I have been lied to all along by an anonymous person on a football forum.

This makes no sense.

Unless, that is, the fact that "knowledge of absolute truth by humans is impossible" has been experienced by your admittedly flawed senses.

Has that happened?

Sure. Maybe you have flawless senses, highly doubtful.

It seems, if you can't really trust your senses, then you should, in fact retreat to a total skepticism. I'll throw a larger monkey wrench in for you.

I wish I could; not an option.

Again, are your senses infallible?

If your entire rationality is the product of blind chance and meaningless processes, then why should you trust that you are even a rational being? If your ability to interpret reality around you is the result of blind chance, then what makes you think that you can trust anything that you interpret from reality?

I'll paraphrase Darwin: If your rationality is the product of monkeys, why would you trust anything you think any more than anything a monkey would tell you?

I would think, with the underpinnings of your philosophy, the 'rationality' needed in science would be the furthest thing you'd pursue.

A lot of assumptions going on here.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Prudent? Who is to define "prudent"? Shall we remain with one, agreed definition, so as not to equivocate?

Independent of experience...


Have you experienced:

That material is all that exists...

That the natural is all that exists...

That the supernatural is completely unknowable by natural means...

That the only valid form of knowledge is that which is or can be empirically proven...

That no human can have ultimate truth...

(I'm sure there were more, but I'll leave it here for now since I have a Christmas meal awaiting me... :hi

Oh, and real quickly... Your addition of "prudence" seems a bit disingenuous within the standard of empiricism: i.e. that which must be proven empirically. You seem to be a very confused-- on one hand adhering to empiricism, and then redefining things for yourself by some subjective "prudence"...)

That went right over your head.

I said it was the prudent definition given the way you were framing your sentences/argument.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Faith in the scientific process is not the same as the faith in the flying spaghetti monster, faith in Allah, faith in the Roman Gods, faith in the Greek Gods, faith in pseudoscience, etc. The scientific process operates on testable and falsifiable hypotheses. That is what distinguishes the scientific process from everything else. As a result, our knowledge of the world and quality of life has greatly increased throughout the ages. The only part of religion that fits the bill is the testable/falsifiable parts of the scripture; the age of the Earth, global floods, etc. All the rest is untestable/not falsifiable claims written thousands of years ago by man and edited/translated many times since. Thus far, the literal interpretation of scripture has not done well in that arena.

See, there we are missing each other. You are equating, and that is the unfairness to the argument that I have been talking about.

I am saying that your faith is in the unprovable, metaphysical assertions through which you interpret evidence from the scientific processes, just as my faith is in the unprovable, metaphysical assertions through which I interpret evidence from the scientific process. Your faith is in your underlying paradigm. My faith is in my underlying paradigm.

You seem to think that Science==Naturalism. I am claiming that science is a process that is observed, and has been observed, historically, through many paradigms.

 

[Orange_Crush]

A lot of assumptions going on here.

It's a very interesting debate for anyone wanting to have it. I'll put it this way. My worldview tells me that I am a rational being, with a correct interpretation of reality because an intelligent, rational being gave me rationality.

You tell me, from your naturalistic worldview, which has created you through blind chance and blind, natural processes, why you can trust you are rational and have a correct interpretation of reality.

What about survival of the fittest assures you that you have a correct rationality, if "fittest" doesn't mean "most rational"?

Darwin mentioned the problem. CS Lewis wrote quite a bit about it. If you can answer, I'd love to hear it because I've never seen it satisfactorily answered.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Disagree on fundamental grounds. In this case, one side has an end state (Biblical) and is working backwards from that to formulate theories and discuss evidence. The other side is starting with available evidence and using that to formulate theories on an ever changing possible end state(s) as new data becomes available.

Two different modes of thought. One requires faith up front, the other puts faith....I guess you can call it...into the evidence and has no preference to any given final explanation.

And for the record, PTK... This was the original quote I was speaking to when I started my diatribes concerning faith in naturalistic underpinnings. I was not saying you shouldn't have such faith; just that one should be honest to the fact of such faith.

Also, BTW... I was indeed being a smart***. My apologies if it offended.

I always enjoy a good debate and thank all of you for your time.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

See, there we are missing each other. You are equating, and that is the unfairness to the argument that I have been talking about.

I am saying that your faith is in the unprovable, metaphysical assertions through which you interpret evidence from the scientific processes, just as my faith is in the unprovable, metaphysical assertions through which I interpret evidence from the scientific process. Your faith is in your underlying paradigm. My faith is in my underlying paradigm.

You seem to think that Science==Naturalism. I am claiming that science is a process that is observed, and has been observed, historically, through many paradigms.

Anything beyond Descartes's cognito requires faith of some kind: faith in your senses, faith in your memory, faith in your rational faculty, etc. Faith in your senses to eat, survive, and live is not the same as having faith in the flying spaghetti monster.

Equating the scientific process (testable and falsifiable) to matters pure metaphysical/supernatural faith (not testable or falsifiable) is absurd.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It's a very interesting debate for anyone wanting to have it. I'll put it this way. My worldview tells me that I am a rational being, with a correct interpretation of reality because an intelligent, rational being gave me rationality.

This tells me all I need to know about you. We are worlds apart. You preach certainty; I preach doubt.

You tell me, from your naturalistic worldview, which has created you through blind chance and blind, natural processes, why you can trust you are rational and have a correct interpretation of reality.

What about survival of the fittest assures you that you have a correct rationality, if "fittest" doesn't mean "most rational"?

Darwin mentioned the problem. CS Lewis wrote quite a bit about it. If you can answer, I'd love to hear it because I've never seen it satisfactorily answered.

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe; they are not accurate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Equating the scientific process (testable and falsifiable) to matters pure metaphysical/supernatural faith (not testable or falsifiable) is absurd.

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm not equating the scientific process to metaphysical/supernatural faith? I'm equating the actual metaphysical nature of a naturalistic paradigm through which evidence is interpreted.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe; they are not accurate.

My bad...

 

[Obsessed]

Y'all are giving me a headache.





I do find it interesting , I believe pkt may have met his match " on the other side of philosophical worlds"

 

[Orange_Crush]

Y'all are giving me a headache.

I'll cut it out. It was a fun debate that ran its course.

 

[Obsessed]

I'll cut it out. It was a fun debate that ran its course.

No. I enjoyed it. I just don't have the intellect to keep up with you guys. I enjoy your perspectives along with his and trut's on issues. I credit those two both with helping me "open" my mind. And you have done the same. Keep it. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

No. I enjoyed it. I just don't have the intellect to keep up with you guys. I enjoy your perspectives along with his and trut's on issues. I credit those two both with helping me "open" my mind. And you have done the same. Keep it. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I enjoy it too. Finally good to see someone like OC to come along and kick some "hard thinkers in the secular world" butts to where they are in a corner & are trying to pull out all the stops to save face from embarrassment the way I saw it.....lol.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I just don't have the intellect to keep up with you guys.

I'm sure you do. Any problems that you may have had following me can most definitely be attributed to my lack of ability to get the concepts across.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm not equating the scientific process to metaphysical/supernatural faith? I'm equating the actual metaphysical nature of a naturalistic paradigm through which evidence is interpreted.

Which is useless because both scientific and theological paradigms are constantly shifting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Which is useless because both scientific and theological paradigms are constantly shifting.

So, "science" as you have defined it, has shifted away from its materialist, naturalistic paradigm?

Rupert Sheldrake will be relieved.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, "science" as you have defined it, has shifted away from its materialist, naturalistic paradigm?

Rupert Sheldrake will be relieved.

What? Science is not unified. Further, science goes through paradigm shifts just like theology. How they view certain facts changes with each paradigm.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What? Science is not unified. Further, science goes through paradigm shifts just like theology. How they view certain facts changes with each paradigm.

I am not asking if science goes through paradigm shifts. I am asking if you are actually trying to pawn off the statements as truth that current, mainstream science, as we have been discussing in this thread, no longer operates by the inherent principle of naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

Methodological naturalism - RationalWiki

You are telling me that this has changed while we weren't looking.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am not asking if science goes through paradigm shifts. I am asking if you are actually trying to pawn off the statements as truth that current, mainstream science, as we have been discussing in this thread, no longer operates by the inherent principle of naturalism.

You are telling me that this has changed while we weren't looking.

You keep going around in circles. What are you getting? You are upset that science doesn't just attribute causes to God and be done with it?