Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Enough to detect errors in reasoning without too much trouble.
What do YOU know?
Here again you evade a simple question challenging a claim you've made, and shift the burden of proof. It was you who said "in hopes to make us doubt everything we know". GoCardinals simply asked you to support your claim to have a certain knowledge. But you give a vague "enough..." answer, which is no answer at all, and then try and challenge him to support a claim he hasn't even made (at least not yet).
Here again you evade a simple question challenging a claim you've made, and shift the burden of proof. It was you who said "in hopes to make us doubt everything we know". GoCardinals simply asked you to support your claim to have a certain knowledge. But you give a vague "enough..." answer, which is no answer at all, and then try and challenge him to support a claim he hasn't even made (at least not yet).
You are too much, Transponder.
You are not enough Vic. Not nearly. You know (Cardinals I'm not sure about) that 'what we know' is the whole body of validated data. As well of course of the method of logical reasoning. That is what we refer to as evidence, and that is what Theist apologetics so often tries to make us doubt in hopes (because faith claims and appeals to Unknown generally follows...or precedes that argument) to make unsupported claims look more plausible.
Now I think it possible that you didn't know that, but learn the lesson; if you want to avoid looking a dope, don't laugh and wave me away before you know what I'm talking about.
Which is? C'mon now, don't evade the question while trying to convince us you're not evading the question
I've seen "evidence" defined in a number of ways, sometimes limited strictly to physical, tangible realities.
Stop being pseudo -obtuse. You know what the body of evidence (validated data) is and we can do without your chop logic "Oh...evidence is dreams, visions and lies...if someone says so". Let's stick with what is validated info. that can be used to support conclusions.
This question reveals why you don't know what you don't know. There is no legitimate way to discuss God and religion without resort to philosophy despite the inexplicable decision to split philosophy and science from what was the religion and philosophy forum. When you remove philosophy and science from such metaphysical discussions you leave only ranting and raving about ignorant and absurd irrational belief systems with no recourse to reality and facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That is certainly what we are getting, or rather rabid finger -waving and accusations without even a peddling of your ignorant, absurd and irrational belief system. Perhaps Philosophy can help in clarifying thinking about various god -claims, but basic logic (n as well as reference to scientifically validated data - which is NOT banned from the forum - merely discussion ABOUT Philosophy and science with little relevance to religion) seems to be perfectly adequate and Philosophy has only led to Theist -based constructs like Kalam or Ontological arguments. In other words, a fertile ground for bamboozlement, of which your attempts to buy the argument for free without any valid case by certificate -waving (which you have tried to do ever since I have known you) is a particularly clumsy and dishonest example.
Have a Lovely weekend
I understand your confusion since The Ontological Argument has been considered an argument for God since Anselm. However, in a more generic meaning, Ontology IS: The branch of metaphysics (philosophy concerning the overall nature of what things are) is concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of things that ACTUALLY exist - so a myriad of things can be subject to ontological argument, Arq. In fact, my efforts to look at mathematics as comprised of ontological indices instead of merely as a useful predictive tool ran afoul of a lack of ontological perspective. I found that almost nobody looks at the measurements and formulations in our artificial mathematical language ontologically. When I asked what the two versions of the phenomenon we call energy (E=Mc^2 and E=hf) reveal ontologically about what the phenomenon ACTUALLY is and what it reveals about the composition of our reality, I was greeted by vacant stares and questions about my understanding of mathematics.
Well, thanks, Mystic for the little lecture on the Ontological argument which saves us looking in Wiki. It doesn't alter the argument that it is flawed because it has to assume the existence of a god at some point to make it's case. I recall that Alvin Plantinga made a big push for an ontological argument some years ago. I believe that we looked at it here and it has some serious flaws in it. it certainly doesn't seem to have the impact that Kalam did, certainly.
I understand your confusion since The Ontological Argument has been considered an argument for God since Anselm. However, in a more generic meaning, Ontology IS: The branch of metaphysics (philosophy concerning the overall nature of what things are) is concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of things that ACTUALLY exist - so a myriad of things can be subject to ontological argument, Arq. In fact, my efforts to look at mathematics as comprised of ontological indices instead of merely as a useful predictive tool ran afoul of a lack of ontological perspective. I found that almost nobody looks at the measurements and formulations in our artificial mathematical language ontologically. When I asked what the two versions of the phenomenon we call energy (E=Mc^2 and E=hf) reveal ontologically about what the phenomenon ACTUALLY is and what it reveals about the composition of our reality, I was greeted by vacant stares and questions about my understanding of mathematics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Well, thanks, Mystic for the little lecture on the Ontological argument which saves us looking in Wiki. It doesn't alter the argument that it is flawed because it has to assume the existence of a god at some point to make its case. I recall that Alvin Plantinga made a big push for an ontological argument some years ago. I believe that we looked at it here and it has some serious flaws in it. it certainly doesn't seem to have the impact that Kalam did, certainly.
My use of an ontological perspective was NOT to make the case for God. It was to explain my perspective of science and mathematics as indicators of the ACTUAL nature of our Reality. We take measures that we pretend are static indicators of the state of reality. We then manipulate them in our artificial mathematical rubric that we pretend is what our Reality is doing. But the measures are not static and the manipulations only mimic outcomes from what our Reality is doing. The measures themselves are events occurring in quantum time and the formulations can reveal what the underlying nature of Reality ACTUALLY IS viewed ontologically.
We ignore the quantum time it takes for our supposed "instantaneous and continuous awareness" to form. We only deal with the time that elapses during our perceived "continuous moments of instantaneous" time as we experience and measure it. This is not a conscious choice to ignore. It is unavoidable given that the quantum formation of our "continuous and instantaneous awareness" is perforce NOT available to our awareness itself. Using this ontological perspective of the two equations for Energy (E=Mc^2 and E=hf) reveals the actual nature of what we call energy/mass/momentum as vibratory events. I suspect this perspective and conclusion will still elude you, Arq.
it relates in that "life" is the most valid claim we have at this point in describing what/how/why people are believing what the they believe. Luckily, the sciences are starting to teach to that. Unfortunately the less capable in our ranks, or is that more personal agenda ridden people? oh well, either way, keep mucking up how things are just to satisfy themselves.
so again, science has shown some parts of theism is right and some parts of atheism are correct. and some ... not so much.
it relates in that "life" is the most valid claim we have at this point in describing what/how/why people are believing what the they believe. Luckily, the sciences are starting to teach to that. Unfortunately the less capable in our ranks, or is that more personal agenda ridden people? oh well, either way, keep mucking up how things are just to satisfy themselves.
so again, science has shown some parts of theism is right and some parts of atheism are correct. and some ... not so much.
I'm certainly watching what science is telling us 'what/how/why people are believing what the they believe'. But I don't see how 'life' as such relates to that, unless you are talking about basic animal reaction (which relates back to Chemical reaction) that eventually becomes how we think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
