Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JimL]

JimL

"No, it is not a priori. I said "if the universe is real". And so if we assume the universe to be real, then the empirical evidence discovered of it would be objectively real as well."

No that's not learned through empirical evidence, because you're using circular reasoning to justify your assumption.

No, that is pure logic. If the universe is real, then that means everything about it is real including the empirical evidence discovered of it.

You're trying to use the empirical world to give evidence for the existence of the empirical world and yet you end up right back where you started, therefore you end up begging the question. So unless you justify the empirical world being 'real' a priori you'll never get out of this trap, you just have assume the world is real, because there is absolutely no evidence for it, and this one of the few assumptions that we have 0 evidence for to support. We just have to assume it's true a priori and work our way from there.

No, you are misunderstanding what we are discussing. I am assuming the universe to be real in this discussion therefore i am not using the empirical world to give evidence for its existence. Its existence is already assumed in the premise. If your only argument against science producing proof about the nature of the world is that the world itself may not exist then you are not arguing about the validity of science, you are arguing about existence itself for which you have no argument.

"Then the universe would not be real"

Not necessarily, because YOU would be the universe, and you're obviously real.

No, i would not be the universe, i would be a mind within the which a universe would be imagined.

"Same answer, the universe would not be real. "

This is different, and you're completely wrong. A hallucination doesn't make the universe a fake, it just makes YOUR perception faulty, that doesn't mean everyone else in reality has a fault perception, it would just be you.

No, if I were dreaming or hallucinating then you yourself and everything else incorporated within that dream would be the universe we are discussing, would be our universe, and that universe would not be real. We can't be both participating in a real objective universe and dreaming it at the same time, its either one or the other.

"Again, if what i am percieving is not real, then the universe that i believe i am percieving is not real."

But your belief or faulty perception doesn't change the truth. You could be in a coma right now, but that wouldn't effect someone outside your perception. You seem to think that the universe is dependent upon whether or not YOUR senses are working properly, but you haven't given an argument for why this is the case.

We are discussing the universe of our perception, of both of our perceptions. If your argument is that you are only a figment of my imagination, then the world of my perception is not real. Again, the world is either real or it is not. I'm trying to discuss this with you under the assumption, the very likely assumption, that the world is real. If your only argument against science is that the world may not even exist then you are not arguing the validity of science.

"It is an obvious fact that humanity does not possess all possible knowledge"

I agree, and that's all I need to make my argument work.

No it isn't. One doesn't need to know everything in order to know something. If you believe you know nothing then what are you arguing about?

" but we don't have to possess all possible knowledge in order gain some knowledge. "

Sure, but I'm talking about absolute knowledge, not justified belief. This is why I don't find the Earth rotating around the sun as being something that is absolutely true.

Well, try accepting the concept that you and the universe you live in and experience is real and then maybe you can accept the fact that the earth rotates around the sun is absolutely proven to be true. If you have other reasons, other than the universe itself may not exist, for denying scientifically proven facts then please present them. You might as well argue that 100,000 years from now we will find evidence that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, that it equals 7.

"Thats why we do science, to gain knowledge that we didn't previously have. "

But the problem with this is the fact that we don't know if we are working forwards or backwards, we have no endzone to look at and use as a checklist, we just 'wing it' and hope for the best.

You don't need an end zone in order to know that you just gained 10 yards.

"You can not overturn scientifically proven facts such as the proven fact that the earth revolves around the sun."

Sez who? the only way you can justify this claim is if you have absolute knowledge that this is the case, but you don't. There is no proven fact, it's just our best theory based on our current knowledge and that's it. There is no sugarcoating it.

Okay, so you say. Now prove that it is only theoretical. Again, the only argument you have is that the universe may not be real and therefore nothing we discover of it is real. Does 2+2 = 4? or could future evidence overturn that?

"That is not a theory, it is a fact. Epistemology does not mean that we haven't the ability to know anything, and science is the only way we can know anything with certainty."

Science absolutely fails when it comes to knowing things with certainty, for instance show me the science that supports your statement.

It only fails absolutely if you deny that existence is real. Science begins with an hypothesis, then theory, and then in some instances proof, i.e. so long as you accept that the world is real.

You even said before that you're not certain of whether or not this reality is what it seems, and now you're telling me that science is the only way to know things with certainty. This makes no sense.

It is highly likely that the world is real, which you have admitted yourself "i'm 99.9% sure that the earth revolves around the sun" and if that is the case then science and only science is the only way to prove the truth about that world. If you disagree then show another method that is not pure speculation.

Science can't even tell us whether or not knowing the truth even matters,

If the truth matters to us then that is all that is needed to prove that it matters.

and it can't even tell us whether or not we're in the Matrix so right then and there it fails when it comes to certainty, only logic and math can do this.

Yes, and again this is your only argument, which if true, then nothing is real anyway so who cares. I have no doubt that science will solve this question one day as well.

"No methodology other than science can prove to us that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius."

This is a non-sequitur, science only deals with scientific questions, and what you're doing here is using a scientific question whilst giving a scientific answer as if every question is scientific. I could just counter by saying If I wanted someone to judge the beauty of my painting I wouldn't go to a scientist, I'd go to an artist.

No you couldn't. Beauty, unlike water freezing, comes in many forms and is in the eye of the beholder, its a personal judgement call not a fact.

I hate to break it to ya, but science isn't everything and you're obsession with this exposes your ignorance.

Who said science was everything?

Once again advise me how science can point out my favorite color and I rethink everything over.

Whats your point?

"We have been wrong when it comes to theory, not when it comes to fact."

This is just semantics, if you want to define 'fact' as something based on our best understanding then I'd agree, but if you claim a fact is a truth with absolute certainty then I obviously disagree.

Yes, i know we disagree on this, because i'm basing "fact" on the concept that the world is real and that facts about it can be discovered. I'm not arguing with you about the possibility that the world doesn't exist and that therefore there are no real facts about it. If that is your only argument, then it isn't worth arguing over.

"That Pluto was a planet was no more than a belief, not an empirically tested or proven fact. What happened is that science has shown that belief to be wrong."

Oh so I guess when I was in junior High I was reading a book on science that contained non-empirically tested or proven facts. Wonderful, so what else in our science books are not empirically tested or proven? BEcause I thought Pluto WAS tested, I mean you would think that for all those years scientists really had good reasons to believe that Pluto was a planet.

It is a planet in the sense that they knew anything at all about the nature of planets at the time. Planets were nothing more than the 9 large objects orbiting the sun. None of their specific natures were not known at the time.

"This is where we disagree, not everything is suspect, some things are theoretical and so not yet proven, but some things are proven true by science."

Name one thing, and demonstrate how it's proven by science. I want evidence not assertions

Already named 2 which were proven by empirical science. I can't demonstrate to you that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius if you are not here to see it. But you can prove it to yourself.

"Nobodys arguing that we have things right, i'm arguing that we have some things right beyond doubt, i.e. so long as we are assuming that the universe is real."

So beyond doubt, instead of absolutely true? I'd agree with that.

Nice try. No, some things are absolutely proven true, so long as you accept the highly likely assumption that you and the world exist.

"Anything that is presumed to be true, i.e. theory, is subject to change,"

Even this statement?

" but scientifically proven facts are not presumed to be true, they have been scientifically proven to be true."

No, because that statement is not presumption, it is not a theory, it has been scientifically proven to be true.

Which scientifically proven fact supports this statement?

That the earth rotates about the sun. That water freezes at 0 degrees celsius.

"The earth is not flat or static, it moves and revolves around the sun, and water freezes at 0 degrees celsius."

as far as we know yes, but we're not 100% sure of this, you can ask any scientist in the field if you wish, in fact why don't you give me just one quote from an actual scientist who argues the case that we can be 100% sure of things when it comes to science. Just one...

Sooner or later you'll realize how silly scientism is

Sooner or later you will hopefully come to realize what facts science has brought to light and stop acting silly for the sake of your beliefs.

[Tassman]

@Tassman

@Tassman

Wife is due soon, so I’ll be here and there, not much time to debate, I’ll respond to the first two for now, then get back to the others later.

I wish you and your wife well.

//I repeat: “It would be better if you utilised the QUOTE facility for clarity - pm me if you don't know how.” But if you intend to be lazy then I shall follow your example. It takes too long to sort out your mess otherwise. //

Better for you maybe, hence why I said this is a subjective matter, I guess that went over your head. Though I’ll star tputting your responses in these “//”

//You mean personal selfishness, I think.//

Personal preference, unless you want to admit to being selfish as well, I mean why should I follow your orders?

It’s a question of following custom, not “orders”; and the custom exists for good reason. It’s easier to follow an argument. But, if you don’t intend to comply with custom, then neither will I. It’s extremely time-consuming to clean up your messy presentation.

//What “doesn’t flow with” you is irrelevant. Words have agreed definitions which you are flouting in this instance.//

//Your link does not open.//

Amazon.com put in ‘Routeledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion’ click on table of contents.

n/a

//No it’s a truism because it’s defined as such, namely “a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting”, as quoted by me. And you have yet to deal with your fictional “endzone”.//

I don’t have a problem with analytic truths, however I don’t think you made a good enough argument to support your claim that this isn’t interesting, because this so-called truism of yours could ultimately be self-refuting and you wouldn’t even know it due to your limitations that you just conceded to, and this is a godless reality leads to global skepticism.

Accepting the common meaning of words, as defined in the dictionary is hardly a matter of “godless reality leading to global skepticism”.

//So you “don’t care” that religion is based upon a fictional “endzone”? Really!! And yet you’re a theist.//

Well I’m not an atheist or nonreligious presuppositionalist like yourself, so I guess that point of mine went over your head. Look at what I said, I said I only care about truth, but yet you assume all religions are false, and then proceed to question my Theism when I say how I don’t care about the origin of religion, I want to know whether or not it’s actually true.

The point concerned the fictional “endzone” you set up. And your concept of me being an “atheist presuppositionalist” is as meaningless as accusing someone of being a “presuppositionalist” re the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.

Lastly, religion is not the same thing as Theism and Theism is not religion. Ever heard of Deism? Or Philosophical Theism? All religions could be false, but yet a God can still exist, so I don’t understand why you felt the need to bring that up.

You claim to be a theist so it is reasonable to refer to your beliefs as religious:

Religion: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”.

Theism: “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe”.

//And just what is your evidence for a non-supernatural God, as previously outlined. I’m waiting.//

I’m currently defending the argument from reason, and so far your objections have been handled effortlessly, so hopefully you’ll concede the point that there is evidence for Theism.

You have presented the Thomist deductive argument based upon an unverified premise, nothing more.

//It makes perfect sense granted the premise, but the premise is an assumption.//

Well this is where you have a problem, you see I’m not denying that rationality exists, I’m accepting the premise on the assumption that both Theism and Non-Theism have an equal opportunity to give an explanation for rationality existing. I posit both positions as true for the sake of argument, and then factor in simplicity, so far the latter looks entirely unconvincing. The argument from reason is an argument for God just as arguments for sets and numbers existing are arguments for abstracta.

But they don’t have an equal opportunity. The theistic argument is merely a deductive argument based upon the assumed, unverified, premise that rationality can only flow from a rational mind, i.e. a hypothetical entity known as God. The argument from nature empirically verifies that sentience, consciousness and rationality arose incrementally via natural selection.

//The only rational component of the universe (that we know of) is us. And we have every reason to believe that this came about via natural selection and not via the bestowing of it via a deity.//

The first problem with this is the fact that a deity could use natural selection to do its bidding, so you can try and use your quasi-god to represent Theism, but luckily for me Theism doesn’t depend on one interpretation of a God.

A deity could hypothetically use natural selection but there’s no evidence that a deity did, nor even that a deity exists. And parsimony suggests that adding a deity into the equation is superfluous.

Second problem is the fact that natural selection minus a necessary rational being doesn’t explain where rationality actually came from. I mean did it just pop into existence ex nihilo? Did natural selection just pull rationality from another dimension and plug it into humans? Natural selection minus God entails magic, and does a terrible job at explaining why rationality exists in humans.

There is considerable empirically verified evidence that rationality is an evolved quality and no empirically verified evidence that God-did-it. The latter is an argument from ignorance (and pre-scientific ignorance at that).

Lastly, what we know doesn’t entail what actually is. Humans don’t know a lot of things, such as how old the observable universe actually is down to a T, (it’s roughly 13.7 billion last time I checked) but that doesn’t mean that there is an actual date. Truth isn’t dependent on contingent beings, it’s dependent on what ‘is’ in actuality.
In a determined universe such as ours the only contingency is what went before.

Scientific determinism: "Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past". Hawking.

//Fabulous explanation, but devoid of any actual evidence! Nice idea, but…..//

What do you consider actual evidence? God stopping by and waving hello to you personally? This is a deductive argument, and you need to refute a premise, not just say there is no evidence, because you feel it in your gut.

For a conclusion of a deductive argument to be true its premise must be demonstrably true. And there is no way to demonstrate the truth of the God hypotheses. Any attempt to do so results in the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

//Conjecture, devoid of evidence!

And where would you lot be without the great novelist, poet and apologist CS Lewis. However, he’s not a scientist, nor credentialed philosopher, alas!//

Ad-hominem, you say nothing about the SUBTANCE of the argument, but yet proceed to dismiss the argument just because C.S Lewis put it together.

Second, check out Phil Papers.com, plug in C.S Lewis’ name in the author search, check out those philosophical papers that he was a part of, yep he was a philosopher. So you need to check your history.

“Clive Staples Lewis, commonly called C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as "Jack", was a novelist, poet, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist.” - Bio.com No mention of "philosophical credentials here.

//Highly intelligent aliens creating the universe for interest and experimentation is just as easy and more scientifically probable than an invisible deity. BUT is it correct? There’s no reason to think so in either case.//

The problem with making analogies for God is that it’s hard to posit an analogy that’s analogous to the essential properties of God.

And what exactly ARE the “essential properties” of a hypothesized invisible entity known as God, which wouldn’t apply to hypothesized creator aliens?

An Alien is not a necessary being, if it was it would be a God. An Alien is not an ontologically independent being either, if it was it would be a God. The only way out of this is for you to give these ‘aliens’ Godlike properties, but once you do that you’re just calling these aliens ‘God’. Therefore God is much more simpler to assert due to his ultimacy, the ultimacy that aliens lack.

If you are arguing that God (as opposed to aliens) is not contingent then you are engaging in the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

//REALLY? And the evidence supporting your bald assertion is……?//

The Argument from reason

…based upon an assumed, unproven premise!

//AH, So ALL animals are Godlike, but some animals (humans) are more Godlike than others. Gotcha! (Apologies to Orwell)//

Anything created by God, would obviously have a godlike property in some way or another, some creatures just have more. Take for instance the property of being alive, well that is a similar property to God. So yes, humans are more ‘godlike’ than others, and this is what imago dei is basically saying.

Humans are godlike more so in the intellect, this is why we can do propositions and talk about epistemology. Other animals don’t do epistemology and argue about a priori truths.

The higher animals can reason, utilise tools, and plan ahead - not as effectively as the human animal but sufficiently well to indicate that humans are not unique - just better at it.

//No “magic” and no “poof”. Consciousness, self-awareness and rationality arose incrementally over eons and developed great biological complexity. Read some Dawkins.//

Developed from what? The universe you follow is nonrational and doesn’t possess rationality as an initial property, so what is it arising from? Another dimension that has the property of rationality in it’s existence already?

Was it created out of nothing once self-awareness reached a certain point?

What exactly happened the moment before rationality first arose in it’s very first increment? How did natural selection 'plug' rationality into us?

You need to understand how Evolution works:

-A mutation occurs in an organisms' genes.

-If the mutation is useful (or effectively neutral), it survives and breeds, spreading the mutation.

- If it is not (e.g. a mammal being born without lungs), it doesn't survive or breed, and the mutation is not spread.

- Increasing intelligence was useful and spread and mutated into greater capacity for reasoning and ultimately rational thinking which in turn was useful for survival and so on.....

There is no great mystery about this. Nor did rationality suddenly emerge fully formed.

//So……….?//

Oh, were you going to use some kind of simpler explanation or something?

?

//Cherry-picked quotes. n his later private autobiography, Darwin wrote of the period from October 1836 to January 1839:

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

AND:

“At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists."//

What does this have to do with his initial quote that leaves us reason to be skeptical of our brains? I never said Darwin was a Theist, so why do I care about his silly quotes about God? Look at the SUBSTANCE of what I wrote, not the person who wrote it.

My point was simple, why should we trust our brains if they're geared moreso for survival rather than knowing 'truth' and if it is geared for knowing the truth, then why all mess ups with religion? I mean shouldn't we have been extinct now with all those false beliefs of God and religion? Here is your dilemma!!!
No “dilemma” Knowing the truth of how the universe functions increasing our chances of survival.

//Alvin Plantinga is an apologist//

yeah and? Genetic fallacy much? So if an apologist says Obama is our current president, is he right?

He has an agenda.

//and seeks to defend the totally unevidneced argument for Dualism but his works, as is so often the case merely repackages age-old arguments. Furthermore, he seems to have no understanding whatsoever of evolution and considers his lack of understanding constitutes making important points. As do you it seems.//

So instead of taking shots at Plantinga can you tell me what’s wrong with his actual argument? What is he misunderstanding about evolution? Especially when he is debating moreso about epistemology and not so much evolutionary biology.

There’s so much wrong with Plantinga it’s hard to know where to start. E.g. Plantinga argues for Dualism, for which there is no credible evidence. Also he argues nonsensically that God can be accepted without proof just as the existence of other minds can. What he fails to take into account is that we don’t actually take on faith the existence of “other minds”, whereas we are expected to take the “mind of God” on faith. ETC.

//You are Not evolved for any purposes at all; why would you think you were?//

Oh I guess evolution isn’t concerned with the survival of our gene’s then, I thought you’d agree with me on that.

//Already dealt with! See above.//

Wait….where? Was it the genetic fallacy or the ad-hominem?

Very amusing! Where you wrongly assumed a purpose for the universe.

//Even the most logically consistent argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion if the premise cannot be shown to be true.//

Ok so show this proposition to be true then.

It’s true according to the Rules of Deductive Logic. It is used to deduce true consequences from true premises. The trick is in establishing a true premise. Logic, in and of itself, has no means of doing this.

// And you assumption that a necessary rational being is NECESSARY for rationality to exist in contingent beings is an unsubstantiated assumption.//

No it isn’t, as you said before it perfectly explains why rationality exists, and as epistemologist Thomas Kelly points out, reasons to believe are synonymous with evidence. I think you're trying to say something along the lines of 'evidence can only be physical' well if you are then that's nonsense, as I have reason to believe that the universe is rationally intelligible to begin with, even though I have no physical evidence for it, and yet I have to assume that proposition before I make any empirical investigation at all. I have to assume it in order to make sense of anything. This is just known to me as an a priori use of justification.

Merely believing that “the universe is rationally intelligible” is a hypothesis, not evidence. Unless you can verify this hypothesis it will remain mere conjecture.

// It cannot be shown to be true.//

The only way it cannot be shown to be true is if we adhere to global skepticism.

NO, the only way it CAN be shown to be true is with verifiable evidence.

//As with much Thomism, you are engaging in the Special Pleading logical fallacy.//

First off I don’t see any problems with the 5 ways and we can debate that on other thread at another time, second, there is no special pleading because I’m asserting both positions (Theism and Non-Theism) to be true for the sake of argument whilst picking out the simpler explanation, so you’re accusation fails.

All of the five ways fail because of the Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading, e.g. “If every mover needs a mover, why does God, who is a mover, not need a mover?” Oh, because he is God; Voilà, Special Pleading.

// Evolution occurred incrementally from the bottom up. Only the pseudo science of ID think (without credible evidence) that is was top down.//

And how does a bottom up approach explain things that weren’t ever presently there? You have to at least admit to there being the potential for rationality to exist, even in the initial part of reality. But how does this make sense if we use a bottom up approach? What else should we include in this potential?

Nonsense! See above regarding Evolution.

//But this is a straw man; NOT not the argument. See above.//

It’s your position, that you obviously aren't too fond of, hence the accusation of a strawman, as the bottom up approach doesn’t factor in ontology whilst invoking magic in the process, and when it does it has to explain where ‘rationality’ actually came from. This is why the bottom up approach is so silly, it doesn't realize what it is taking for granted, and it's taking for granted things that already exist. Otherwise it has to resort to creation ex nihilo

See above regarding Evolution.

[Cornell]

@Tassman


//No, its an acknowledgement that your indigestible Gish Gallop style pontifications in TWeb are quite sufficient, thank you.//

Gish Gallop Oh yes, because you are being smothered with arguments that you don’t have enough time to answer, and I'm even laying some other debates aside for the time being (Aquinas 5 ways, Cosmological Argument that shows us why purpose exists)…..well this isn’t a public debate with a time limit.

//I’m assuming that highly intelligent creator aliens don’t exist either. So…….?//

You should assume that it’s at least possible that highly intelligent creator aliens exist, along with Theism IMO. This is why I like looking at the evidence and conceding the alternatives to see how well they ‘fit’ the evidence, that’s how I figure out which view makes the most sense.

//What we “ought“ to carry out is what is requisite to achieve specific ends.//

Right, and if there is no purpose to our existence then there is no ends that are mind-independent, just a subjective purpose that is mind-dependent and extrinsic, therefore there is no ultimate goal to achieve. So when one tells me that religion is silly, I just say ‘so what? It’s not like we have a goal to do what’s not sillly’ So anyone that denies an ultimate purpose should act the part and realize that they are nothing but a conglomeration of matter living in a pointless universe with no ultimate goal in which they ‘ought’ to fulfill. It makes no difference to this impersonal universe if one tries to save the lives of other humans or just sits in bed withering away their existence, the universe doesn’t care and looks at humans in the same way as it does cockroaches. It lacks personhood., so there is no relationship or thing that humans ‘ought’ to resemble.


//Not so. Our behaviour (i.e. morality) derives from our evolved needs of self-preservation and procreation in every case.//

Which is why a fundamental principle of morality is ‘existence is better than non-existence’ we can self-preserve anything if we are dead, so there is a way that things are with respect to meeting these needs. Though without a God, we run into problems, the obvious problem is what is control of my moral decisions only for the sake of self-preservation and procreation? When I help out an old lady across the street am I doing it for an obligation or because of some nonrational, purposeless evolutionary process that controls me. If I’m being controlled then I have no moral responsibility to do anything, since I’m not morally accountable for anything I do.

When I help out the old lady, should I say I’m doing this because of our evolved needs or should I say I’m doing this because I feel as if I have a moral obligation to do so, and this obligation is independent of any evolutionary process.


//Theism posits NO explanation for ‘value’ and why people ‘care’ about each other, whatsoever. It posits duty to our fellows. Natural Selection provides substantiated evidence that our caring is instinctive. //

Theism definitely posits an explanation for value, simply because of personhood. Natural selection is impersonal and is mainly concerned with self-preservation and procreation as you pointed out, so there is no person to person relation. Natural selection doesn’t get upset if we all go extinct and die, it lacks personhood. It also gives us epistemic problems as I pointed out above. natural selection doesn't 'care' whether or not we KNOW what 'caring' is, so it leaves us to be skeptical.

Why trust anything natural selection provides with respect to ‘caring’ when it’s purpose isn’t to make us care for each other in the first place. Remember there is no ultimate goal here, and natural selection isn’t following a guidebook on how to make it’s species care the best for each other.

//Nope! This is not a logical conclusion.//

It’s perfectly logical since we are contingent upon this process, and we come from this process, you seem to be invoking magic here to sugar coat all the things you don’t like about this impersonal personal process that somehow, and someway got us to care for each other, even though we don’t have any purpose to do such.



//“Intrinsic value” evolved; it’s instinctive; NOT a philosophical argument. BTW: Your much quoted hero is a philosopher NOT a sociobiologist, whose field this properly is. //

This is nonsense, how could intrinsic value evolve, if humans could have evolved differently?


//What it points out is that the very concept of a deity arose as a means for primitive people to explain otherwise inexplicable natural phenomena. Basically an argument from ignorance, i.e. a Logical Fallacy, which we still see today among religious folk!//

No, this is actually a genetic fallacy as your judging the basis of the actual position on ancestors who believed in it rather than whether or not it's actually true and you make an appeal to time. Just because primitive people believed in Theism that doesn’t change anything with respect to whether or not Theism is true or false, the truth of Theism is mind-independence, since God’s existence doesn’t depend on a contingent being that God created

Lastly, primitive people also thought it was a good idea to eat food when they got hungry, should we dismiss this logic because it came from primitive people?

Therefore your objection fails.

//Ignorance is bliss, you mean? We don’t need secrecy to fulfill our natural instincts.//

But that’s not the point, even if a few natural instincts are altered that still could make a big difference, and that difference can lead to more comfort. Take for instance the case of a cameraman filming every minute of your life whilst you knowing about, do you honestly think that this wouldn’t change ANYTHING about you at all, with respect to how you do things?


//Ah, back to the novelist, poet, apologist you seem to think is authoritative.//

You should deal with the actual ‘substance’ of the argument, not the person who gave the argument. So this is just sketchy hand-waving on your part.


//Magical thinking, NOT a “sense of divine thinking”, but certainly it has been common among primitive, ignorant people of an earlier era to explain a mysterious universe. Magical thinking is the attribution of causal relationships between events which cannot be justified by reason and observation; it’s the antithesis of empirically tested science. //

1) It’s only magical thinking if theism is false,

2) primitive people weren’t wrong about everything, they thought drinking water was a good way to quench their thirst, so how did that go?

3) Who is to say that 1,000,000 years from now, future humans will be calling us primitive?

4) Empricial tested science doesn’t lead to all knowledge, for instance please show me empirically tested science that empirically proves the claim that all knowledge must come from empirically tested science.

So you and your scientism didn’t do so good there….



//False dichotomy! And resorting to magical thinking is readily explained.//

Why is it a false dichotomy when your view doesn’t let us know when the evolutionary process is forcing us to believe things only because these so called beliefs lead to better self-preservation and procreation?



//Come now, Jean-Paul Sartre was a French novelist and philosopher who is famous for his development and defence of atheistic existential philosophy.//

Yeah and? Did you happen to see the quote I left you? Any opinions on the actual quote itself or are you going to run from the actual substance again?


//So why introduce it at all in the context of your argument for theism?//

It’s not an argument for Theism, it’s my argument for the logical conclusion of non-Theism and what I’d expect if Theism was false. If there is no purpose, then all talk of ‘care’ is a meaningless delusion given to us by the blind watchmaker (as Dawkins calls it)


//Extraordinary how you can totally miss the most salient feature of Camus:

“Camus ultimately became an atheist and, as a thinker, he considered religious faith to be “philosophical suicide.” This idea was based on Camus’ philosophy of the absurd. According to Camus, mankind was perpetually attempting to rationalize an irrational universe. This process of rationalization resulted in the absurd and religious belief fell into said category. He said:

We turn toward God only to obtain the impossible.

Nevertheless, some maintain that the religious imagery and symbolism in Camus’ work indicated a sort of conflict within him, and that he actually craved something spiritual. But perhaps it was only Camus’ struggle with the absurd. He was, after all, one of the men he described. Nevertheless, atheist seems the most appropriate designation.//

I never said he wasn’t an atheist, so I don’t know what your point is here. I’m not using Camus to make an argument for Theism, so you’re totally lost and judging by your interactions with others that seems to be a trait of yours.

You need to look at what people are saying, not what you want them to say.

//One does not base an assessment of the human condition upon the pathological exceptions to the norm. Depression/Suicide is a pathological condition.//

Yeah and? So are there suicidal humans or not? Try answering this time.


//Do earthworms consider themselves “intrinsically valuable”, of course not. “Survival” is an instinct, not the philosophical position you’re trying to make it.//

As I pointed out before ‘intrinsic’ value isn’t dependent on what one thinks, because if something is intrinsically valuable then that fact is a mind-independent fact and not a fact that’s dependent on one’s opinion, even an earthworm, so this is a non-sequitur. I could just say that babies don’t think they have rights, because they don’t know any better, so does that mean they shouldn’t have rights? Of course not and this is why your analogy misses the mark.

//Do earthworms believe that ‘existence is better than non-existence’? See above.//

They don’t have to, intrinsic value isn’t dependent upon what they believe, just as the existence of gravity isn’t dependent on what humans believe.

//Science is not about objective metaphysical truth; it is a collection of methods for making abstract models of nature and then testing those models against reality.//


Agreed, and this is exactly why I'm a scientific anti-realist

// But, that said, the established theories have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt; the laws and constants of the universe have been verified to date and appear to exist throughout the entire universe. Thus, the sun may not rise tomorrow as expected, but the high probability is that it will – it can even be predicted where and when. So you are right: Science may be found to be wrong in a thousand years. But it probably won't be regarding key areas such as Gravity, Electro-Magnetic Theory, Quantum, Evolution or Relativity and the other well established Laws and Constants of the Universe.//

Our limitations are still a problem here, because all these theories that have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt are still suspect, and can be changed in the future. We can verify data all we want, but that doesn’t make them absolute truths to point where we know that this is how it is.

The sun may not rise tomorrow, but to say that changes will probably not take place in areas of evolution, gravity, electro magnetic theory, quantum and relativity is an act of ignorance. For all we know our science books that we see now could be changed in as little as 10,000 years, and we have no way of knowing this because we are stuck with our limitations.

as I said before, all our theories could be the very best of a bad lot of theories, because we just didn’t know any better.


//Logical Fallacy: Argument from Incredulity!//

So what? Virtually every claim (with the exception the Cogito, some conceptual truths and some mathematical truths) can be an argument from incredulity simply because we aren’t omniscient. This is why I push for metaphysical optimism, and right now I’m pessimistic of atheism, because I believe Theism is true.

//Already shown!//

You haven't shown anything, please demonstrate to me what you think I mean when I say 'Image of God'


//Hume does not claim to lead anyone into utopia.//

So what? As a member of the independent party, I don't claim to lead anyone into right wing politics, however right wingers could still use some of my arguments against leftists.


//We can get into that once the debate on rationality and morality is done with.//

Sure


//ALL the above is speculation. MY speculation as to why people are leaving religion in droves in the West is that they are better educated and can see Religion for the superstitious nonsense that it is.//

All of the above tells it like it is, the fact of the matter is, there were many religious people years ago who accepted religion though their acceptance wasn't based on the arguments, because apologetics wasn't as big as it's getting now. So what this means is that the majority of religious people don't accept their beliefs on arguments, but yet I do, so I only worry about the arguments and not the numbers of people who agree with me. I think ad-populum is a weak form of justification and rarely has any explanatory force.

If I was the last Theist on this planet I still would weigh my beliefs based on the arguments themselves rather than how many secularists are living in the West.

All and all I still think they are either lazy, emotional, hate theists, or just don't know what the heck Theism even entails, some are so wrapped up looking at Theism as if it only has one view involved with it that they think this one view is all there is and then they leave Theism.

It's as if they think the fundamentalist version of Theism or Christianity is the only view that exists, and this is narrow-minded and lazy.


//I don’t “hate religion”; religion is too silly to hate.//

Hmm I guess I'll take your word for it on the fact that you don't hate 'religion' or people like myself, though if think that my acts of giving to people who are need is an act of silliness then you need to back up your assertions. I look at your view as follows:

In a purposeless godless world you are not here for any reason and are not here to secure any goals but you can invent a bed time story, pretend you have a reason or goal for your accidental existence, pretend your every choice is not equally arbitrary, valueless and are not an accidental conglomerations of pointless matter in a random world.

All godless values and choices wind up being arbitrary (=contingent solely on ones discretion ).
So, given our accidental and arbitrary existence, to continue in purposeful resolve, as if there was actually some rationale for preferring one course of action to another, is to take another Godless leap of faith. When you call me silly, I'm not offended, because it's coming from a purposeless conglomeration of matter who fizzes in the way A, rather than in the way of B.

You shift matter in the way of A, and I shift in the way of B, that's all there is, and that's all a godless universe amounts too with respect to obligations.


//These are a parody of the arguments and basically a rather sad attempt at Reductio ad Absurdum – yet another of Logical Fallacies you seem to specialise in.//

Just because you say 'Cornell committed a logical fallacy' that doesn't magically make it the case where Cornell actually commits a logical fallacy.

[Cornell]

@Robertb

//Why do you think that objective values are preferable to subjective values when it comes to the question of morality? //

Because of this

Subjectivists have to accuse nearly everyone of misunderstanding their own moral claims, and secondly such a view eliminates the possibility of moral disagreement.

ex:

Me - Raping a woman for no reason is wrong

subjectivist - what I'm hearing is - you disapprove of raping women for no reason

me - Yes, I disapprove of raping women for no reason, but that's not what I'm saying, I'm not talking about my attitudes, I'm talking about raping women for no reason. You're changing the subject

You as the subjectivist will have a tough time making sense of my reply here, because it's not that my reply is false, but yet my reply is unintelligible, since it assumes that moral talk is about something other than my own commitments. So if you assume precisely that, then if subjectivism is right then we are badly mistaken.

So for you as a moral subjectivist who denies moral facts you need to avoid the problem of contradiction, you have to say that moral assertions report facts only about our own commitments. When I say that raping women for no reason is wrong, I am not saying that it has a certain feature that is 'wrongness' I'm actually saying that I disapprove of it or that my principles forbid it. So I am talking about myself, that's not what most people think when they make their moral judgments.

There is a second and even more dangerous problem that I believe ends the debate, though I still leave it open to moral antirealists to explain their position.

Russ Shafer Landau explains

"Subjectivism is unable to explain the existence of moral disagreement. In order to avoid generating contradictions, subjectivists have to understand all moral judgments as reports of whether I approve of something or not. The claim that meat-eating is wrong becomes the claim that I disapprove of meat-eating....but on this line, moral debates that seem to involve intense disagreement become something completely different. In fact now it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for people to morally disagree with one another.

To see this imagine an earlier dispute

You say: It's wrong to eat meat

Your friend says: It's ok to eat meat

The subjectivist translates this as follows:

You: I disapprove of eating meat.

Your friend: I approve of eating meat.

The contradiction has indeed disappeared, BUT SO HAS THE DISAGREEMENT. If you are both taking this seriously, you'll agree with your friend's claim, and she with yours. If all that moral judgments do is report people's outlooks, then there is no way to morally disagree with anyone - except to charge them with insincerity. But that seems plainly wrong"

[Cornell]

JImL

part 1

//No, that is pure logic. If the universe is real, then that means everything about it is real including the empirical evidence discovered of it.//

Right, so you agree with me on the fact that one cannot know this based purely on empirical evidence, and this is because it's pure logic, and pure logic can be used in an armchair, that is to say, we can know a priori and we can' t learn this through empirical means.

We can't empirically check the reliability of our senses, or whether or not we are the only mind in existence without arguing in a circle, we have to invoke a metaphysical presupposition before any investigation takes place.


//No, you are misunderstanding what we are discussing. I am assuming the universe to be real in this discussion therefore i am not using the empirical world to give evidence for its existence.//

Very good, that's what I'm arguing, I'm glad we agree. Although that absolutely goes against your scientism, since you just conceded an instance of justification that was not known through science.

// Its existence is already assumed in the premise. If your only argument against science producing proof about the nature of the world is that the world itself may not exist then you are not arguing about the validity of science, you are arguing about existence itself for which you have no argument.//

This makes no sense, the validity of science exists in existence, right? So how can you possible try to make some of kind of distinction in which science plays no part in existence. I think it is you who are confused.

//No, i would not be the universe, i would be a mind within the which a universe would be imagined.//

No you'd pretty much be the universe and everything in the universe would be contingent upon your mind. You are the only thing that exists, so whatever you think up is the universe... get my drift?

//No, if I were dreaming or hallucinating then you yourself and everything else incorporated within that dream would be the universe we are discussing, would be our universe, and that universe would not be real. We can't be both participating in a real objective universe and dreaming it at the same time, its either one or the other.//

What empirical evidence did you use to arrive at this conclusion? Have you dreamt this up already whilst experienced the claim you are suggesting?

How do you KNOW that we can't be both participating in a real objective universe and dreaming up at the same time? Perhaps some evil genius in the future has gained the knowledge to do this, and yet have us duped to the point where we think it isn't possible, but yet it is. The Matrix is a perfect example of this, and this is the illusion. So why you do you dismiss a simulated reality.

//We are discussing the universe of our perception, of both of our perceptions. If your argument is that you are only a figment of my imagination, then the world of my perception is not real. Again, the world is either real or it is not. I'm trying to discuss this with you under the assumption, the very likely assumption, that the world is real. If your only argument against science is that the world may not even exist then you are not arguing the validity of science.//

You're wrong, All physical evidence you encounter in your life is still based on the assumption that you exist, and that you aren't just a brain in a vat or just a simulation, or a computer program. This means EACH and EVERY piece of physical evidence is rooted in an assumption.

All your assumptions are based upon any lack of justification whatsoever. In Foundationalist epistemology all your thinking can only be as strong as your foundations are. They cannot be any stronger. The Strength of the foundations determine the strength of everything built upon it.

//No it isn't. One doesn't need to know everything in order to know something. If you believe you know nothing then what are you arguing about?//

Do you know what devil's advocate means?

And I know that one doesn't need to know everything in order to know something, but knowledge in this sense is then limited to a justified belief instead of absolute knowledge. Which is fine, but it shows how science isn't the only route to knowledge and puts philosophical claims right back into the game.

//Well, try accepting the concept that you and the universe you live in and experience is real and then maybe you can accept the fact that the earth rotates around the sun is absolutely proven to be true. If you have other reasons, other than the universe itself may not exist, for denying scientifically proven facts then please present them. You might as well argue that 100,000 years from now we will find evidence that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, that it equals 7.//

You aren't getting it are you, if I accept this concept that I already accept does that make it absolutely true? Of course not, because of the problem of perception. And I don't see why a mathematical truth is analogous to a scientific truth so explain to me why I might as well argue that 100,000 years from now I'll find evidence for a mathematical claim that could very well be an abstract object, in which would change the abstract object.

Do you know what an abstract object is? If you think math is more along the lines of nominalism then it doesn't matter if the evidence changes, because math is just a linguistic token. Perhaps you should sharpen up on your metaphysics.

//You don't need an end zone in order to know that you just gained 10 yards.//

Aye but you don't know if you just moved 10 yards backwards or forwards, this is why your position is hopeless. One day I'll hope you'll be skeptical of your position and then think things over.

//Okay, so you say. Now prove that it is only theoretical. Again, the only argument you have is that the universe may not be real and therefore nothing we discover of it is real. Does 2+2 = 4? or could future evidence overturn that//

Well it depends on whether or not Platonism is true with respect to abstract objects lol

//It only fails absolutely if you deny that existence is real. Science begins with an hypothesis, then theory, and then in some instances proof, i.e. so long as you accept that the world is real.//

And what exactly makes something 'real'? Is what realness dependent upon your perception?

//It is highly likely that the world is real, which you have admitted yourself "i'm 99.9% sure that the earth revolves around the sun" and if that is the case then science and only science is the only way to prove the truth about that world. If you disagree then show another method that is not pure speculation.//

Sure another method is

if X is necessarily true, then it is impossible to be false

So if it is necessarily true that the earth revolves around the sun then it's impossible for it to be false, you can't learn that with science, because it's a metaphysical principle that deals with modal logic. Science goes no where without the philosophy it is built on

Before I go for the night, I want you to check out this quote posted by atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett.

" Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

—Daniel Dennett, ‘Darwins Dangerous Idea’

Dennett telling it like it is!

//If the truth matters to us then that is all that is needed to prove that it matters. //

Really? That unsupported assertions sounds entirely subjective, so how do you arrive to that conclusion just based on science it a heck of a lot more philosophical than scientific.

//Yes, and again this is your only argument, which if true, then nothing is real anyway so who cares. I have no doubt that science will solve this question one day as well.//

hahaha your faith in science exposes your gullibility, science isn't' equipped to figure out this question because it doesn't have enough juice to do so.

Science just isn't all powerful as you make it. It goes no where without philosophy.

//No you couldn't. Beauty, unlike water freezing, comes in many forms and is in the eye of the beholder, its a personal judgement call not a fact. //

Ok I'll remember that next time someone writes my name with their urine, as it's on the same page as a painting from Picasso. But thanks for conceding the point on how science isn't big enough to deal with certain personal judgments.

[OingoBoingo]

I look at your view as follows:

In a purposeless godless world you are not here for any reason and are not here to secure any goals but you can invent a bed time story, pretend you have a reason or goal for your accidental existence, pretend your every choice is not equally arbitrary, valueless and are not an accidental conglomerations of pointless matter in a random world.

All godless values and choices wind up being arbitrary (=contingent solely on ones discretion ).
So, given our accidental and arbitrary existence, to continue in purposeful resolve, as if there was actually some rationale for preferring one course of action to another, is to take another Godless leap of faith. When you call me silly, I'm not offended, because it's coming from a purposeless conglomeration of matter who fizzes in the way A, rather than in the way of B.

You shift matter in the way of A, and I shift in the way of B, that's all there is, and that's all a godless universe amounts too with respect to obligations.

I gotta say, I love this.

Its unfortunate that the other poster is having such a hard time following what you're saying.

[Tassman]

I gotta say, I love this.

Its unfortunate that the other poster is having such a hard time following what you're saying.

You mean somebody is actually ploughing through these walls of endless text?

The "other poster", BTW, understands perfectly well what Cornell is saying; what he is saying is wish-fulfilling fantasy based upon faulty premises and viewed through an unjustified absolutist mindset.

[Tassman]

@Tassman

@Tassman


//No, its an acknowledgement that your indigestible Gish Gallop style pontifications in TWeb are quite sufficient, thank you.//

Gish Gallop Oh yes, because you are being smothered with arguments that you don’t have enough time to answer, and I'm even laying some other debates aside for the time being (Aquinas 5 ways, Cosmological Argument that shows us why purpose exists)…..well this isn’t a public debate with a time limit.

Any conclusion to a philosophical deductive argument is only as good as its premise. And the premises of ALL philosophical arguments can only be based upon the knowledge of the day. The knowledge in the Classical/Medieval period of Aristotle and Aquinas has been superseded by the facts acquired by modern scientific methodology. E.g. the former had no knowledge of counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanism. Nor did they have any concept of the possible eternal nature of the universe, whereby all things are contingent upon what went before and what went before had no beginning.

//I’m assuming that highly intelligent creator aliens don’t exist either. So…….?//

You should assume that it’s at least possible that highly intelligent creator aliens exist, along with Theism IMO. This is why I like looking at the evidence and conceding the alternatives to see how well they ‘fit’ the evidence, that’s how I figure out which view makes the most sense.

Certainly alien creators are possible, much more likely than a creator deity, because the former can be understood in terms of the known laws of nature whereas the latter cannot. But until such time as we have some evidence the notion remain an un-testable hypothesis.

//What we “ought“ to carry out is what is requisite to achieve specific ends.//

Right, and if there is no purpose to our existence then there is no ends that are mind-independent, just a subjective purpose that is mind-dependent and extrinsic, therefore there is no ultimate goal to achieve. So when one tells me that religion is silly, I just say ‘so what? It’s not like we have a goal to do what’s not sillly’ So anyone that denies an ultimate purpose should act the part and realize that they are nothing but a conglomeration of matter living in a pointless universe with no ultimate goal in which they ‘ought’ to fulfill. It makes no difference to this impersonal universe if one tries to save the lives of other humans or just sits in bed withering away their existence, the universe doesn’t care and looks at humans in the same way as it does cockroaches. It lacks personhood., so there is no relationship or thing that humans ‘ought’ to resemble.

Merely wishing for an ultimate goal, when there is no credible evidence of one is delusional thinking.

//Not so. Our behaviour (i.e. morality) derives from our evolved needs of self-preservation and procreation in every case.//

Which is why a fundamental principle of morality is ‘existence is better than non-existence’ we can self-preserve anything if we are dead, so there is a way that things are with respect to meeting these needs. Though without a God, we run into problems, the obvious problem is what is control of my moral decisions only for the sake of self-preservation and procreation? When I help out an old lady across the street am I doing it for an obligation or because of some nonrational, purposeless evolutionary process that controls me. If I’m being controlled then I have no moral responsibility to do anything, since I’m not morally accountable for anything I do. When I help out the old lady, should I say I’m doing this because of our evolved needs or should I say I’m doing this because I feel as if I have a moral obligation to do so, and this obligation is independent of any evolutionary process.

When you "help a little old lady" it's because, as evolved social creatures we instinctively help others within the social group.

//Theism posits NO explanation for ‘value’ and why people ‘care’ about each other, whatsoever. It posits duty to our fellows. Natural Selection provides substantiated evidence that our caring is instinctive. //

Theism definitely posits an explanation for value, simply because of personhood. Natural selection is impersonal and is mainly concerned with self-preservation and procreation as you pointed out, so there is no person to person relation. Natural selection doesn’t get upset if we all go extinct and die, it lacks personhood. It also gives us epistemic problems as I pointed out above. natural selection doesn't 'care' whether or not we KNOW what 'caring' is, so it leaves us to be skeptical.
Why trust anything natural selection provides with respect to ‘caring’ when it’s purpose isn’t to make us care for each other in the first place. Remember there is no ultimate goal here, and natural selection isn’t following a guidebook on how to make it’s species care the best for each other.

Natural selection is NOT impersonal and it is NOT mainly concerned with self-preservation. The self-preservation you refer to is contingent upon the preservation of the group to which we belong. These are evolved qualities and include the naturally selected instincts of altruism, reciprocity and adherence to the rules of the group. It is religion that is the more selfish; it focuses upon personal salvation.

//Nope! This is not a logical conclusion.//

It’s perfectly logical since we are contingent upon this process, and we come from this process, you seem to be invoking magic here to sugar coat all the things you don’t like about this impersonal personal process that somehow, and someway got us to care for each other, even though we don’t have any purpose to do such.

Quite the reverse; it is YOU attempting to define our world though your own absolutist filter;

//“Intrinsic value” evolved; it’s instinctive; NOT a philosophical argument. BTW: Your much quoted hero is a philosopher NOT a sociobiologist, whose field this properly is. //

This is nonsense, how could intrinsic value evolve, if humans could have evolved differently?

How we view our fellow humans has demonstrably changed over the millennia – from a purely tribal mentality to one whereby we recognize the human rights of ALL individuals.

//What it points out is that the very concept of a deity arose as a means for primitive people to explain otherwise inexplicable natural phenomena. Basically an argument from ignorance, i.e. a Logical Fallacy, which we still see today among religious folk!//

No, this is actually a genetic fallacy as your judging the basis of the actual position on ancestors who believed in it rather than whether or not it's actually true and you make an appeal to time. Just because primitive people believed in Theism that doesn’t change anything with respect to whether or not Theism is true or false, the truth of Theism is mind-independence, since God’s existence doesn’t depend on a contingent being that God created. Lastly, primitive people also thought it was a good idea to eat food when they got hungry, should we dismiss this logic because it came from primitive people? Therefore your objection fails.

ALL religions throughout human history, from animism thorough to polytheism then monotheism have been man-made attempts to explain the human condition. And ALL, without exception, have invented a deity or deities who demand sacrifices in order for their anger to be appeased. These were and are the deities both primitive people and present day people believe in. As for God’s existence "not being dependent upon a contingent being", IF, as is hypothesised, the universe is itself eternal the concept of a Necessary Being of any sort is irrelevant. And, for all your talk about the lack of absolute knowledge in science, it is philosophy which is dependent upon the evolving understandings of science for its world-view. And if the scientific knowledge does not support the philosophical argument based upon it the latter fails - as did Aristotle's concept of a geocentric universe when science proved the heliocentric universe.

//Ignorance is bliss, you mean? We don’t need secrecy to fulfill our natural instincts.//

But that’s not the point, even if a few natural instincts are altered that still could make a big difference, and that difference can lead to more comfort. Take for instance the case of a cameraman filming every minute of your life whilst you knowing about, do you honestly think that this wouldn’t change ANYTHING about you at all, with respect to how you do things?

And how is one supposed to alter ones genetically encoded instincts?

//Ah, back to the novelist, poet, apologist you seem to think is authoritative.//

You should deal with the actual ‘substance’ of the argument, not the person who gave the argument. So this is just sketchy hand-waving on your part.

I’m constantly bemused at the importance given by certain theists to a novelist who reached his peak 70 years ago.

//Magical thinking, NOT a “sense of divine thinking”, but certainly it has been common among primitive, ignorant people of an earlier era to explain a mysterious universe. Magical thinking is the attribution of causal relationships between events which cannot be justified by reason and observation; it’s the antithesis of empirically tested science. //

1) It’s only magical thinking if theism is false,

But we don’t know theism is true.

2) primitive people weren’t wrong about everything, they thought drinking water was a good way to quench their thirst, so how did that go?

Drinking water is demonstrably necessary for survival; the existence of magical spirits is NOT demonstrably true.

3) Who is to say that 1,000,000 years from now, future humans will be calling us primitive?

I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be the case; and the most primitive thing of all, I surmise, is that we still cling to the superseded mythical notion of gods and spirits.

4) Empricial tested science doesn’t lead to all knowledge, for instance please show me empirically tested science that empirically proves the claim that all knowledge must come from empirically tested science.

Empirically tested science doesn’t claim it can lead to all knowledge. But knowledge-claims about the natural world cannot be shown to be true without it.

So you and your scientism didn’t do so good there….

So you and your word-games didn't do so good there, more to the point.

//False dichotomy! And resorting to magical thinking is readily explained.//

Why is it a false dichotomy when your view doesn’t let us know when the evolutionary process is forcing us to believe things only because these so called beliefs lead to better self-preservation and procreation?

Evolved, genetically encoded “instinct” is not the same as saying we are “forced to believe things”.

//Come now, Jean-Paul Sartre was a French novelist and philosopher who is famous for his development and defence of atheistic existential philosophy.//

Yeah and? Did you happen to see the quote I left you? Any opinions on the actual quote itself or are you going to run from the actual substance again?

Your carefully selected quote is misleading. It is not representative of his typical thinking whereas you seemed to be suggesting it was.

//So why introduce it at all in the context of your argument for theism?//

It’s not an argument for Theism, it’s my argument for the logical conclusion of non-Theism and what I’d expect if Theism was false. If there is no purpose, then all talk of ‘care’ is a meaningless delusion given to us by the blind watchmaker (as Dawkins calls it)

Theism most probably IS false and regarding lack of ultimate purpose, there’s no reason why we can’t enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts. I do. I feel sorry for those who need the fantasy of life eternal to give the present meaning.

//Extraordinary how you can totally miss the most salient feature of Camus:

“Camus ultimately became an atheist and, as a thinker, he considered religious faith to be “philosophical suicide.” This idea was based on Camus’ philosophy of the absurd. According to Camus, mankind was perpetually attempting to rationalize an irrational universe. This process of rationalization resulted in the absurd and religious belief fell into said category. He said:

We turn toward God only to obtain the impossible.

Nevertheless, some maintain that the religious imagery and symbolism in Camus’ work indicated a sort of conflict within him, and that he actually craved something spiritual. But perhaps it was only Camus’ struggle with the absurd. He was, after all, one of the men he described. Nevertheless, atheist seems the most appropriate designation.//

I never said he wasn’t an atheist, so I don’t know what your point is here. I’m not using Camus to make an argument for Theism, so you’re totally lost and judging by your interactions with others that seems to be a trait of yours.

You need to look at what people are saying, not what you want them to say.

Then why are you using Camus at all? In no way does he support your world-view, quite the reverse. He considers it absurd.

//One does not base an assessment of the human condition upon the pathological exceptions to the norm. Depression/Suicide is a pathological condition.//

Yeah and? So are there suicidal humans or not? Try answering this time.

Of course there are. But, again, one does not base an assessment of the human condition upon the pathological exceptions to the norm.

//Do earthworms consider themselves “intrinsically valuable”, of course not. “Survival” is an instinct, not the philosophical position you’re trying to make it.//

As I pointed out before ‘intrinsic’ value isn’t dependent on what one thinks, because if something is intrinsically valuable then that fact is a mind-independent fact and not a fact that’s dependent on one’s opinion, even an earthworm, so this is a non-sequitur. I could just say that babies don’t think they have rights, because they don’t know any better, so does that mean they shouldn’t have rights? Of course not and this is why your analogy misses the mark.

The point you've missed in your continual attempt to filter everything your absolutist mindset, is that survival is an evolved instinct of all living creatures from earthworms to babies. It has nothing to do with intrinsic worth per se.

//Do earthworms believe that ‘existence is better than non-existence’? See above.//

They don’t have to, intrinsic value isn't dependent upon what they believe, just as the existence of gravity isn't dependent on what humans believe.

Nor is the prime imperative of survival dependent upon what humans believe.

//Science is not about objective metaphysical truth; it is a collection of methods for making abstract models of nature and then testing those models against reality.//

Agreed, and this is exactly why I'm a scientific anti-realist

Whatever that means…

// But, that said, the established theories have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt; the laws and constants of the universe have been verified to date and appear to exist throughout the entire universe. Thus, the sun may not rise tomorrow as expected, but the high probability is that it will – it can even be predicted where and when. So you are right: Science may be found to be wrong in a thousand years. But it probably won't be regarding key areas such as Gravity, Electro-Magnetic Theory, Quantum, Evolution or Relativity and the other well established Laws and Constants of the Universe.//

Our limitations are still a problem here, because all these theories that have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt are still suspect, and can be changed in the future. We can verify data all we want, but that doesn’t make them absolute truths to point where we know that this is how it is.

There are NO absolute truths, except ones we define to be true such as 1+1=2. The nearest we can get to absolute truths are the established theories of science which have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt; the laws and constants of the universe have been verified to date and appear to exist throughout the entire universe.

The sun may not rise tomorrow, but to say that changes will probably not take place in areas of evolution, gravity, electro magnetic theory, quantum and relativity is an act of ignorance. For all we know our science books that we see now could be changed in as little as 10,000 years, and we have no way of knowing this because we are stuck with our limitations.

as I said before, all our theories could be the very best of a bad lot of theories, because we just didn’t know any better.

Possibly but unlikely! And, more to the point there’s no viable alternative. Theism is entirely unsupported by any substantiated evidence.

//Logical Fallacy: Argument from Incredulity!//

So what? Virtually every claim (with the exception the Cogito, some conceptual truths and some mathematical truths) can be an argument from incredulity simply because we aren’t omniscient. This is why I push for metaphysical optimism, and right now I’m pessimistic of atheism, because I believe Theism is true.

If you think, without substantiated evidence, that “theism is true”, then your “metaphysical optimism” is merely metaphysical delusion - or at best, metaphysical wishful thinking.

[JimL]

JImL

part 1

//No, that is pure logic. If the universe is real, then that means everything about it is real including the empirical evidence discovered of it.//

Right, so you agree with me on the fact that one cannot know this based purely on empirical evidence, and this is because it's pure logic, and pure logic can be used in an armchair, that is to say, we can know a priori and we can' t learn this through empirical means.

Well, if it can be known that the universe is real, not some sort of simulation, then it will be science that proves it, not philosophy or logic. If you can't know in the absolute whether or not the universe is real or some sort of simulation, which even you seem to agree with since it seems to be your only argument against science proving anything, then how do you argue that you can know anything a priori?

We can't empirically check the reliability of our senses, or whether or not we are the only mind in existence without arguing in a circle, we have to invoke a metaphysical presupposition before any investigation takes place.

If the reliability of your senses is suspect, then so is the reliability of your logic and any metaphysical presupposition it comes up with. So how about we just make the highly likely assumption that the universe is real and whether or not something can be proven and what methodology it is that can prove it.

//No, you are misunderstanding what we are discussing. I am assuming the universe to be real in this discussion therefore i am not using the empirical world to give evidence for its existence.//

Very good, that's what I'm arguing, I'm glad we agree. Although that absolutely goes against your scientism, since you just conceded an instance of justification that was not known through science.

No, that is not what you have been arguing. We know that the universe we experience exists, what we are assuming is not its existence, what we are assuming as a premise is that it correspondes to what we perceive to be reality. Perhaps, highly unlikely, but perhaps it is a simulation, but then who cares? Why even argue such a point. If true it does your argument for a priori knowledge no good.

// Its existence is already assumed in the premise. If your only argument against science producing proof about the nature of the world is that the world itself may not exist then you are not arguing about the validity of science, you are arguing about existence itself for which you have no argument.//

This makes no sense, the validity of science exists in existence, right? So how can you possible try to make some of kind of distinction in which science plays no part in existence. I think it is you who are confused.

See above.

//No, i would not be the universe, i would be a mind within the which a universe would be imagined.//

No you'd pretty much be the universe and everything in the universe would be contingent upon your mind. You are the only thing that exists, so whatever you think up is the universe... get my drift?

If i were the universe then nothing would be contingent. The universe can't be contingent upon the universe.

//No, if I were dreaming or hallucinating then you yourself and everything else incorporated within that dream would be the universe we are discussing, would be our universe, and that universe would not be real. We can't be both participating in a real objective universe and dreaming it at the same time, its either one or the other.//

What empirical evidence did you use to arrive at this conclusion? Have you dreamt this up already whilst experienced the claim you are suggesting?

Do you know the difference between what is meant by a dream and what is meant by an objective reality? You would do much better in logical reasoning if you stick to the proper definition of the terms used in your argument.

How do you KNOW that we can't be both participating in a real objective universe and dreaming up at the same time? Perhaps some evil genius in the future has gained the knowledge to do this, and yet have us duped to the point where we think it isn't possible, but yet it is. The Matrix is a perfect example of this, and this is the illusion. So why you do you dismiss a simulated reality.

Because its a contradiction in terms. Will you go to any extremes to justify your case to yourself?

//We are discussing the universe of our perception, of both of our perceptions. If your argument is that you are only a figment of my imagination, then the world of my perception is not real. Again, the world is either real or it is not. I'm trying to discuss this with you under the assumption, the very likely assumption, that the world is real. If your only argument against science is that the world may not even exist then you are not arguing the validity of science.//

You're wrong, All physical evidence you encounter in your life is still based on the assumption that you exist, and that you aren't just a brain in a vat or just a simulation, or a computer program. This means EACH and EVERY piece of physical evidence is rooted in an assumption.

Will you persist with this ridiculous argument? Both of our arguments is based on the highly likely assumption that the universe is real, that it is not a simulated illusion. Why you would even argue this point, since it destroys your own argument of philosophical or logical proofs or a priori knowledge, is beyond me.

All your assumptions are based upon any lack of justification whatsoever. In Foundationalist epistemology all your thinking can only be as strong as your foundations are. They cannot be any stronger. The Strength of the foundations determine the strength of everything built upon it.

And your own foundation is an assumption, so according to you, you can know nothing. The difference between your assumed premise and mine is that, whatever the universe is, we know that it exists.

//No it isn't. One doesn't need to know everything in order to know something. If you believe you know nothing then what are you arguing about?//

Do you know what devil's advocate means?

Yes I do. So is that all you are up to here?

And I know that one doesn't need to know everything in order to know something, but knowledge in this sense is then limited to a justified belief instead of absolute knowledge. Which is fine, but it shows how science isn't the only route to knowledge and puts philosophical claims right back into the game.

No it doesn't, philosophical claims are speculative in nature and speculation, which may be believed, and may even be true, but it is not known to be true. There is a reason for our testing of philosophical concepts.

//Well, try accepting the concept that you and the universe you live in and experience is real and then maybe you can accept the fact that the earth rotates around the sun is absolutely proven to be true. If you have other reasons, other than the universe itself may not exist, for denying scientifically proven facts then please present them. You might as well argue that 100,000 years from now we will find evidence that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, that it equals 7.//

You aren't getting it are you, if I accept this concept that I already accept does that make it absolutely true? Of course not, because of the problem of perception.

That you base your argument on the fact that there is a problem with perception destroys any argument that you try to make. If you accept that the universe correspondes to the reality that we experience then base your argument against science on that otherwise you lose your own argument to yourself.

And I don't see why a mathematical truth is analogous to a scientific truth so explain to me why I might as well argue that 100,000 years from now I'll find evidence for a mathematical claim that could very well be an abstract object, in which would change the abstract object.

If your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty because of the necessity of a presuposition then you can't claim to know that anything is true.

Do you know what an abstract object is? If you think math is more along the lines of nominalism then it doesn't matter if the evidence changes, because math is just a linguistic token. Perhaps you should sharpen up on your metaphysics.

And just how do you know any of this to be true?

//You don't need an end zone in order to know that you just gained 10 yards.//

Aye but you don't know if you just moved 10 yards backwards or forwards, this is why your position is hopeless. One day I'll hope you'll be skeptical of your position and then think things over.

If you are speaking of gaining knowledge, then when you gain it you know, analogously speaking, that you are moving forwards.

//Okay, so you say. Now prove that it is only theoretical. Again, the only argument you have is that the universe may not be real and therefore nothing we discover of it is real. Does 2+2 = 4? or could future evidence overturn that//

Well it depends on whether or not Platonism is true with respect to abstract objects lol

You mean that philosophy can't prove anything?

//It only fails absolutely if you deny that existence is real. Science begins with an hypothesis, then theory, and then in some instances proof, i.e. so long as you accept that the world is real.//

And what exactly makes something 'real'? Is what realness dependent upon your perception?

Whether the universe is real or not, in the sense that it actually corresponds to our perception, is the highly likely assumption that I am basing my argument on. If you want to continue arguing on the bases that the universe may be a simulation of sorts then your own argument is of little or no practical value.

//It is highly likely that the world is real, which you have admitted yourself "i'm 99.9% sure that the earth revolves around the sun" and if that is the case then science and only science is the only way to prove the truth about that world. If you disagree then show another method that is not pure speculation.//

Sure another method is

if X is necessarily true, then it is impossible to be false

So if it is necessarily true that the earth revolves around the sun then it's impossible for it to be false, you can't learn that with science, because it's a metaphysical principle that deals with modal logic. Science goes no where without the philosophy it is built on.

Your very premise is speculation since it begins with "if" so proves nothing. Do you have another premise that is absolutely true and proven to be so by philosophy?.

Before I go for the night, I want you to check out this quote posted by atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett.

" Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."


Dennett telling it like it is!

Sure. Now where is Dennets claim that philosophical speculation itself proves anything

//If the truth matters to us then that is all that is needed to prove that it matters. //

Really? That unsupported assertions sounds entirely subjective, so how do you arrive to that conclusion just based on science it a heck of a lot more philosophical than scientific.

Yes really. Theres this thing called common sense. Language means what we intend it to mean. When we say that something matters we mean that it matters to us.

//Yes, and again this is your only argument, which if true, then nothing is real anyway so who cares. I have no doubt that science will solve this question one day as well.//

hahaha your faith in science exposes your gullibility, science isn't' equipped to figure out this question because it doesn't have enough juice to do so.

How can you, who because of your presupposition and faulty perception, knows nothing with certainty, make such a claim?

Science just isn't all powerful as you make it. It goes no where without philosophy.

First of, thats a different argument. Philosophy is speculation based on reason and logic, which is an aid to science, but philosophical speculation isn't proof of itself.

//No you couldn't. Beauty, unlike water freezing, comes in many forms and is in the eye of the beholder, its a personal judgement call not a fact. //

Ok I'll remember that next time someone writes my name with their urine, as it's on the same page as a painting from Picasso. But thanks for conceding the point on how science isn't big enough to deal with certain personal judgments.

Tell it to Jackson Pollack!

BTW Cornell, I don't have near the patience or beneficence of Tass, so i can no longer reply to you if you refuse to make it difficult by not using the quote facility as it is intended to be used.

[Cornell]

Apologies to JimL and Tassman, but my daughter was born on Thursday (first child 7lbs, 9ou)and I will take a break from debating for a bit.

I'll make sure that when I'm ready, (who knows how long that will be) that I'll return here right where I left off.

Take care for now!!

- Cornell

[Tassman]

Apologies to JimL and Tassman, but my daughter was born on Thursday (first child 7lbs, 9ou)and I will take a break from debating for a bit.

I'll make sure that when I'm ready, (who knows how long that will be) that I'll return here right where I left off.

Take care for now!!

- Cornell

Congratulations! Your life will be turned upside down but it's worth it. Mostly!!

[Cornell]

JIML

Who said science was everything?

You do it constantly when you keep attempting to argue that philosophy alone can’t get us to knowledge.

Whats your point?

It shows the limits of science, it is an example of why the growth of science is self-limited.

Yes, i know we disagree on this, because i'm basing "fact" on the concept that the world is real and that facts about it can be discovered. I'm not arguing with you about the possibility that the world doesn't exist and that therefore there are no real facts about it. If that is your only argument, then it isn't worth arguing over.

And your concept has no assurance on whether or not anything in world is what it seems, so you base your first assumption on either blind faith or a basic belief. You have not solved the problem of the external world, and this is why you try and sugarcoat it to the point where you don’t think this is a problem, so you just shrug your shoulders and make pretend that there is no problem, because that’s your only way out. Too bad it’s not that easy.

Then comes the problem of what forms such a constraint might take on the advancement of learning.

Pace Peter Medawar, at its most forward frontiers, science is at the very limit of comprehensibility. A secientist henceforward must train for ten to fifteen years if he is to take his place in the front line of those engaged in the struggle for understanding, and even as it is, modern science is beyond comprehension of any one mind. This would be different if science had a goal that could be attained, but it has not, this is because there can in science be no apodictic certainty beyond the reach of criticism. A scientist must spend years upon years before he can become adequately proficient in research, the scientist takes much longer than that already, for what is research but learning – and what scientist ever feels that, being complete, his research is now finished? So in conclusion the nature of science is such that a scientist goes on learning all his life – and must – and exults in the obligation upon him to do so. There is no determinate process of education at the conclusion of which a scientist can flex his muscles and pronounce himself ready at last to take part in the long struggle against ignorance and disease.

It is a planet in the sense that they knew anything at all about the nature of planets at the time. Planets were nothing more than the 9 large objects orbiting the sun. None of their specific natures were not known at the time.

And for all we know, this probably hasn’t changed, but since you can’t predict the future nor have access to what really is in an absolute sense, you have no argument, because you haven’t proved anything. You’ve given evidence sure, but I already accept the evidence, I just don’t call it a proof in the absolute sense, because science isn’t big enough for that.

Already named 2 which were proven by empirical science. I can't demonstrate to you that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius if you are not here to see it. But you can prove it to yourself

So prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that this demonstration will not change in 100,000 years. Every scientific anti-realist and postmodernist will gladly ditch their views if you can do this.

Nice try. No, some things are absolutely proven true, so long as you accept the highly likely assumption that you and the world exist.

Can you please prove to me the fact that these things will not change? I mean I put a lot of stock into the uniformity of nature as well, but I can’t prove that the sun will rise tomorrow if you catch my drift.

Or maybe reality just popped into being 4 minutes ago with an appearance of age? How does one prove the reliability of the past?

No, because that statement is not presumption, it is not a theory, it has been scientifically proven to be true

Demonstrate it to me then, I want reasons on why 1,000,000 years from now no new data will dislodge these scientifically proven facts from absolute certainty, and show me why the uniformity of nature will never change.

Then let’s laugh at Bertrand Russell for getting it wrong,

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

- Bertrand Russell, ‘Religion and Science’

According to Bertrand Russell, you follow science as if it’s a religion. I think he’s right, as you are claiming certain scientific theories are absolutely true, a claim that I rarely see any scientists in academia ever make.

That the earth rotates about the sun. That water freezes at 0 degrees celsius.

This is just an assertion, as you didn’t advise me on how you KNEW this.

Sooner or later you will hopefully come to realize what facts science has brought to light and stop acting silly for the sake of your beliefs.

According to these great minds, I actually know a lot more about science than you do.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. What we usually call ‘scientific knowledge’ is, as a rule, not knowledge in this sense, but rather information regarding the various competing hypotheses and they in which they stood up to various tests; it is, using the language of Plato and Aristotle, information concerning the latest, and the best tested, scientific opinion. This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

- Sir Karl Popper, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato’ pg 229

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

- Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion" in The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion”

You take a religious mindset when it comes to science, I don’t, as I'm fully aware of the limits of science.

Well, if it can be known that the universe is real, not some sort of simulation, then it will be science that proves it, not philosophy or logic. If you can't know in the absolute whether or not the universe is real or some sort of simulation, which even you seem to agree with since it seems to be your only argument against science proving anything, then how do you argue that you can know anything a priori?

Because conceptual truths are not the same thing as empirical truths, the latter relies heavily on the reliability of the senses.

Science can’t ever get past the uniformity principle, and when I say it can’t get past it, I mean that science has to presuppose it, just like it presupposes the universe not being a simulation. This is why science cannot know anything for certain. Science can’t tell us whether or not our memories are working properly with respect to recalling the correct information. For all we know we could be recalling the wrong information, so we’re forced to presuppose the reliability of memory.

If the reliability of your senses is suspect, then so is the reliability of your logic and any metaphysical presupposition it comes up with. So how about we just make the highly likely assumption that the universe is real and whether or not something can be proven and what methodology it is that can prove it.

No it isn’t because skepticism about the external world is not the same thing as skepticism towards everything. Once again you are mixing up empirical truths with conceptual truths.

Another important point is that if the universe is contingent then there are no necessary features about our universe. In ‘Contempory Debates in epistemology’ I was convinced by the fact that in the real world certain properties are necessary features of reality. But in the brain in a vat world (or simulated world) they are merely empirical regularities. You seem to try and sugarcoat the simulated world by saying ‘well it doesn’t matter anyways’ well this isn’t a refutation, because you’re not making any argument against the possibility of a simulated world in itself so the skepticism still stands. This is why science cannot discover absolute truths about the universe.

No, that is not what you have been arguing. We know that the universe we experience exists, what we are assuming is not its existence, what we are assuming as a premise is that it correspondes to what we perceive to be reality. Perhaps, highly unlikely, but perhaps it is a simulation, but then who cares? Why even argue such a point. If true it does your argument for a priori knowledge no good.

You assume that ‘we’ exist, science can’t even prove my existence to you, or your own existence to me. You assume that other minds exist besides your own, and your only justification for this assumption is a conclusion based off your presupposition that I exist, though your conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with science, but everything to do with a metaphysical presupposition.

You also say it’s ‘highly unlikely’ that we live in a simulation, but you don’t give me any reason for this.

Last, a priori knowledge isn’t dependent upon whether or not I’m in a simulation, because I’d argue the case that there are truths that reside in all possible worlds. For instance ‘If something is necessarily true, then it’s impossible to be false’ this PROPOSITION is necessarily true in all possible worlds.

See above

Likewise

If i were the universe then nothing would be contingent. The universe can't be contingent upon the universe.

I disagree, if you go, then I go. My existence is contingent upon yours, even if I’m just a thought.

Do you know the difference between what is meant by a dream and what is meant by an objective reality? You would do much better in logical reasoning if you stick to the proper definition of the terms used in your argument.

Of course I do, as I’ve studied skepticism for many years. The problem is you keep misunderstanding the difference between a solipsism, problem of the external world, and the problem of perception. They aren’t all the same.

[Cornell]

Tassman

@Tassman

I wish you and your wife well.

Thanks, it is a great feeling to be a father, and I’ll be on here every now and then. Right now I found some time.

It’s a question of following custom, not “orders”; and the custom exists for good reason. It’s easier to follow an argument. But, if you don’t intend to comply with custom, then neither will I. It’s extremely time-consuming to clean up your messy presentation.

No one ever complains on Facebook, however I have changed things up on my replies only because JimL was threating to leave, and since I enjoy debating those who adhere to the silliness of scientism, I didn’t want him to go.

n/a

Well then you’re just dismissing academia. Do you honestly think that Buddhism is not a religion?

Accepting the common meaning of words, as defined in the dictionary is hardly a matter of “godless reality leading to global skepticism”.

So when the topic that has great importance to the philosophy of religion is brought up should I put more stock into the dictionary or philosophers in academia? If philosophers conflict with dictionaries I always side with philosophical jargon, why should I do otherwise?

The point concerned the fictional “endzone” you set up. And your concept of me being an “atheist presuppositionalist” is as meaningless as accusing someone of being a “presuppositionalist” re the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.

Well unicorns don’t have the same importance as a God, so I don’t like the analogy.
Atheism in current times has become an identity, it is a lifestyle, if it wasn’t a lifestyle then there wouldn’t be an atheist experience show or an atheist political party. When arguing in academia, atheism is the belief that there are no God’s or God. David Silverman is even having talks about an AtheistTV!!!! If he hasn't already put this into effect.

Atheists have an identity problem and they need to work this out at their organized atheist conventions IMO. Perhaps one could look for answers in Peter Boghossian's 'Manual for creating atheists'. Or better yet, let's look at a real academic.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

William Rowe The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy p.62

“Atheism, as presented in this book, is a definite doctrine, and defending it requires one to engage with religious ideas. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.”

Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion p.xvii

This is important, because Christian pressupositionalists can share the same mentality as atheist presuppositionalists, and with that being said, their style of arguments will be similar.

With all that being said, even if a unicorn existed, it wouldn’t have the same impact on people as it would if a God existed.

Graham Oppy who is an atheist philosophy points out why

"A key difference between Naturalism and Theism is that naturalists suppose that agency and consciousness are late and local features of reality, whereas Theists suppose that agency and consciousness are initial features of reality"

- Graham Oppy 'Debating Christian Theism' pg 75

Unicorns aren’t in the debate with respect to why existence exists….God is, so God wins, and the only analogy one can use against God in this respect is God. So your analogy isn’t analogous.

You claim to be a theist so it is reasonable to refer to your beliefs as religious:

Religion: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”.

Theism: “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe”.

If I have to commit to your definitions then how do I distinguish ‘secularism’ from ‘atheism’???

Aristotle was a secularist, but he was also a believer in a God, so obviously there is a problem here.

Many of the US founding fathers were Deists, so are you telling me that the US was founded by men of religion?

You have presented the Thomist deductive argument based upon an unverified premise, nothing more.

Aquinas wouldn’t use this argument, because he didn’t need too. You’re whole objection is an appeal to verificationism. You reject all deductive arguments because they haven’t been verified, so in other words you only accept inductive logic. You presuppose an epistemology and expect me to adhere to it, then argue for God. The problem is I don’t accept your epistemology, and I’ll go more into that below.

But they don’t have an equal opportunity. The theistic argument is merely a deductive argument based upon the assumed, unverified, premise that rationality can only flow from a rational mind, i.e. a hypothetical entity known as God. The argument from nature empirically verifies that sentience, consciousness and rationality arose incrementally via natural selection.

You’re just assuming that verificationism is the only way to go.

First off if I could empirically verify God’s existence, then obviously I wouldn’t need a deductive argument to make a case for him.

Second, verificationism is false as it is self-refuting
Verificationism says something only has meaning if it can be empirically validated. Well, the truth proposition, "All propositions must be empirically verified in order to have meaning", cannot be empirically verified itself, so by its own criteria, it has no meaning.

Third, your epistemology leads to a solipsism

As Hilary Putnam points out in his newest book ‘Philosophy in an age of science’ If correctness is identified with ‘being verified’ – as verificationism implies, then my correct attribution of mental states to others hinges on these attributions being verified by me in my own experience. These attributions are only intelligible to me as a device for making statements that are or will be verified by my experiences. This is indeed a solipsism, so if you are a solipsist then we can end the discussion here."

Last, there is no reason to deny deductive reasoning or a priori arguments.

I don’t need to verify Socrates’ existence in order to argue his case for being a mortal

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

In a valid deductive argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, therefore it is irrational to believe the premises and deny the conclusion. You do not need to be certain of the premises in order for the argument to be sound. If certainty was the criterion for a good argument, there would be almost no good arguments. Instead, the premises of the argument merely need to be more plausible than their negations. As long as you believe the premises, you cannot deny the conclusion.

A deity could hypothetically use natural selection but there’s no evidence that a deity did, nor even that a deity exists. And parsimony suggests that adding a deity into the equation is superfluous.

It would only be superfluous if there was another explanation that could do the job better than a deity.

last, A deity doesn’t add any steps so there is no reason to argue for parsimony. A deity adds ‘traits’ not steps.

for instance if you think a necessary nonrational substance is the reason for why existence exists, and I think a necessary rational being is the reason for why existence exists, both of us end up using one step. I just have different ‘traits’ added to my explanation. I notice a lot of athiests falling victim to this blunder, and I don’t think they fully thought this through.

There is considerable empirically verified evidence that rationality is an evolved quality and no empirically verified evidence that God-did-it. The latter is an argument from ignorance (and pre-scientific ignorance at that).

All you’re saying is evolutiondidit, or better yet naturedidit but you’re not telling me exactly how rationality came from nonrationality. So was it from another dimension, like a multiverse? Did it come into being ex nihilo? Was it magic? I still don’t see an explanation here at all.

In a determined universe such as ours the only contingency is what went before.

Scientific determinism: "Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past". Hawking.

Right so how does this help your case? If every contingent fact has an explanation for its existence then how do you escape an infinite regress of contingent facts that determined both the future and the past with respect to contingent facts?

For a conclusion of a deductive argument to be true its premise must be demonstrably true. And there is no way to demonstrate the truth of the God hypotheses. Any attempt to do so results in the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

No that’s verificationism, and you need to explain to me why I should hold to your epistemology when the verification principle was never verified by any verification principle in itself.

For instance

‘For a conclusion of a deductive argument to be true its premise must be demonstrably true”

Sez who?

Your principle cannot stand up to its own standards. What empirical or conceptual considerations establish your own thesis, or at least give it an edge over the competing thesis of metaphysical realists such as myself?

“Clive Staples Lewis, commonly called C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as "Jack", was a novelist, poet, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist.” - Bio.com No mention of "philosophical credentials here.

I suggest you search harder, and look at his degree.

in 1922 a First Degree in Greats (Philosophy and Ancient History) and finally in 1923 a First in English language and literature.

In May 1924 he took a Philosophy tutoring position at University College and the next year was elected as a Fellow of English at Magdalen College, Oxford.

He also has published academics on the subject

C. S. Lewis (1955). De Descriptione Temporum. [Cambridge]Cambridge University Press.
Lewis argued for realist philosophy, in fact you should read up on Glenn J. Giokaris’ ‘The Philosophical Journey of C.S. Lewis’ if you’re interested in taking this further.

Anyways, Lewis’ argument still stands, and you’re ad-hominem response doesn’t negate the substance of his argument, so how exactly does one piece of physical matter say something ‘about’ another piece of physical matter, if materialism is true?

And what exactly ARE the “essential properties” of a hypothesized invisible entity known as God, which wouldn’t apply to hypothesized creator aliens?

If you don’t know this, then I don’t know why you’re debating me. What exactly comes to your mind when you think of ‘God’? If you don’t understand the concept, then perhaps for all you know, you might be a Theist by accident.

Your views on reality could actually coincide moreso with a necessary, rational being as the sustainer and creator, but yet you wouldn’t even know it, because you’re asking me for what such and such essential properties actually exist.

Well let’s jump back to when you were speaking of parsimony. What exactly did you have in mind when you spoke of ‘God’ being superfluous? What ‘essential’ properties does this superfluous explanation have?

If you are arguing that God (as opposed to aliens) is not contingent then you are engaging in the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

There is no fallacy of special pleading, because you’re ‘God’ isn’t even analytically true. You're just making ‘god’ small, because a small ‘god’ is easier to refute, however the great thing about Theism is the fact that we don’t have to commit to small ‘gods’ that are contingent upon something else for their existence (why this definition deserves to be called god is beyond me) Your problem here is the fact that your small ‘god’ isn’t even true by definition, so I can’t even work with your concept of God.

But let’s play devil’s advocate and show why my concept of God makes more sense, Ok so aliens are necessary beings, so now how do we make the distinction between them and God??? Well we can’t, and we can’t do this because necessity + rationality is a God-like trait, and when you give aliens God-like traits you’re no longer talking about aliens. In conclusion all you’re doing here is calling X aliens, instead of calling X God.

God’s essential trait (or one of them at least) is ontological independence and this means that God is not dependent upon anything else for God’s existence, if this were different then we aren’t arguing for a God, but yet a small ‘god’. If a Theist wants to deny this, then this is the beauty of Theism, because they need to argue their case on why God is to be dependent upon something else for God's existence.

For instance suppose a small ‘god’ exists, well is this the creator and sustainer of reality? We couldn’t be sure, because it lacks ultimacy, and with that being said there could be a bigger god that this ‘god’ is contingent upon. So Occam’s razor suggests we go right for simplicity and argue for a God to be called a God, this God ‘MUST’ be ontologically independent and metaphysically necessary. This is why Aquinas argued for a Ultimate being, and this is why Theists like myself argue for a being that is not contingent upon anything else for it’s existence.

Perhaps now you know what concept of God makes the most sense, and with that being said I can confidently assert the belief that you are one step closer to Theism (even if you deny it) this is because now you understand a different position of Theism, and IMO the best position a Theist could choose.

This is either taking Aquinas’ ultimate being, and/or a necessary being that is ontologically independent.

…based upon an assumed, unproven premise!

This would only be true, if verificationism was correct.

The higher animals can reason, utilise tools, and plan ahead - not as effectively as the human animal but sufficiently well to indicate that humans are not unique - just better at it.

Well obviously anything created by the divine would have the divine touch, right? Or do I need to verify this by looking at every living thing that has ever lived and ask God if he made it? Anyways, I see no problem here. Humans can do propositions, so can God, Therefore humans are more God-like with respect to the intellect than other animals. Unless there is evidence of other animals having group debates about epistemology, I rest my case.

You need to understand how Evolution works:

-A mutation occurs in an organisms' genes.

-If the mutation is useful (or effectively neutral), it survives and breeds, spreading the mutation.

- If it is not (e.g. a mammal being born without lungs), it doesn't survive or breed, and the mutation is not spread.

- Increasing intelligence was useful and spread and mutated into greater capacity for reasoning and ultimately rational thinking which in turn was useful for survival and so on.....

There is no great mystery about this. Nor did rationality suddenly emerge fully formed.

All this says is evolutiondidit, but nothing was solved, because you didn’t explain to me where the actual ‘rationality’ came from. the laws of physics govern these physical states without any reference at all to what they are "about'.

take Ross's argument for support

1) Some mental states have determinate content. In particular, the states involved in adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, squaring numbers,and taking their square roots are determinate with respect to their intentional content.

2) Physical states are indeterminate with respect to intentional content. Any physical state is logically compatible with the existence of a multiplicity of propositionally defined intentional states, or even with the absence of propositionally defined intentional states entirely.

3) Therefore, the mental states involved in mathematical operations are not and cannot be identical to physical states.

THis was argued here:

"some thinking (judgment) is a determinate in the way no physical process can be. Consequently, such thinking cannot be a (wholly) physical process. If all thinking, all judgment, is determinate in that way, no physical process can be the (the whole of) any judgment at all. Furthermore, "functions" among physical states cannot be determinate enough to be such judgments either. Hence some judgments can be neither wholly physical processes nor wholly functions among physical processes."

And here

"with some simple cases, to reinforce the perhaps already obvious point that pure function has to be wholly realized in the single case, and cannot consistent in the array of "inputs and outputs" for a certain kind of thinking. Does anyone count that we can actually square numbers? "4 times 4 is sixteen; a definite form (N x N = N2) is "squaring" for all relevant cases, whether or not we are able to process the digits, or ralk long enough to give the answer. To be squaring, I have to be doing some thing that works for all the cases, something for which any relevant case can be substituted without change in what I am doing, but only in which thing is done"

No “dilemma” Knowing the truth of how the universe functions increasing our chances of survival.

So why hasn’t humanity gone extinct considering all those false beliefs regarding religion that were present for thousands of years? You’re still in a dilemma.

He has an agenda.

Ok so if I have an agenda to teach my little cousin 2 + 2 = 4 because I feel he should be good at math, does that a priori dismiss anything I say?

There’s so much wrong with Plantinga it’s hard to know where to start. E.g. Plantinga argues for Dualism, for which there is no credible evidence. Also he argues nonsensically that God can be accepted without proof just as the existence of other minds can. What he fails to take into account is that we don’t actually take on faith the existence of “other minds”, whereas we are expected to take the “mind of God” on faith. ETC.

Dualism makes a lot more sense than Materialism, in fact that’s where I’m going with the argument from reason. So if you can give me good answers to the argument from intentionality and everything else I bring up against the overrated materialism then I’ll become a materialist.

Very amusing! Where you wrongly assumed a purpose for the universe.

There was no wrong assumption, this is because Theism is obviously true. See above

It’s true according to the Rules of Deductive Logic. It is used to deduce true consequences from true premises. The trick is in establishing a true premise. Logic, in and of itself, has no means of doing this.

It has no means of doing this? You just used armchair philosophy to arrive at your conclusion right here, otherwise show me the science experiment that lead you to your conclusion.

Merely believing that “the universe is rationally intelligible” is a hypothesis, not evidence. Unless you can verify this hypothesis it will remain mere conjecture.

You misunderstood what I said, when I say rationally intelligible, I mean that we can learn something about reality, because we have the tools to understand it. This has to be ASSUMED, otherwise any attempts to use reason to justify reason ends up in a circle.

NO, the only way it CAN be shown to be true is with verifiable evidence.

And what verifiable evidence supports this claim?

All of the five ways fail because of the Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading, e.g. “If every mover needs a mover, why does God, who is a mover, not need a mover?” Oh, because he is God; Voilà, Special Pleading.

If I have to commit to your god then yes it’s special pleading, but the great thing about Theism is it’s versatility.

God doesn’t need a mover, because if God did need a mover then he doesn’t deserve the title ‘God’ therefore we can’t even get past the fact that you lack a coherent definition of God.

God is the ultimate, not the small. So if I had your concept of God, I’d be an atheist too, your god just isn’t big enough for me. This is why theology matters!!!

Nonsense! See above regarding Evolution.

All I see is ‘evolutiondidit’

See above regarding Evolution.

Evolutiondidit is not an explanation, so I'll go with the better explanation it looks like rationality always existed in some form. If that means God (necessary rational being) + evolution > necessary nonrational substance + evolution, then so be it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It's worth pointing out he has it wrong anyway. It's not that every mover needs a mover but everything moved needs a mover.

[Cornell]

JIML

Because its a contradiction in terms. Will you go to any extremes to justify your case to yourself?

If you think this is such an extreme then give an argument for it? Using science and science alone, how do we discern a simulated reality from a non-simulated reality? I bet you’ll come up with the same probability

Will you persist with this ridiculous argument? Both of our arguments is based on the highly likely assumption that the universe is real, that it is not a simulated illusion. Why you would even argue this point, since it destroys your own argument of philosophical or logical proofs or a priori knowledge, is beyond me.

Right I have an assumption that’s based on a basic belief, and this basic belief does not derive from science, but yet a metaphysical assumption. That’s my whole point, so it doesn’t destroy anything of mine since I’m a foundationalist, so I’m entitled to hold to beliefs that are basic. All I see here from you is ignorance of the core positions in epistemology.

And your own foundation is an assumption, so according to you, you can know nothing. The difference between your assumed premise and mine is that, whatever the universe is, we know that it exists.

This is a strawman, I never said I could know nothing all I’m arguing for is the fact that science has no way of discerning whether or not the universe is real or just an illusion, along with the fact that some beliefs are basic and require no justification whatsoever.

Yes I do. So is that all you are up to here?

On some points yes, I figure it’s a good way to get through to you and show you why scientism ultimately fails.

No it doesn't, philosophical claims are speculative in nature and speculation, which may be believed, and may even be true, but it is not known to be true. There is a reason for our testing of philosophical concepts.

To say that philosophical claims are speculative in nature is making use of philosophy in itself to get to your conclusion, so by your own logic this claim of yours is speculative in nature and can never be known to be true, however the problem here is that you’re acting like it can be known to be true, so every time you try and correct my so called ‘error’ you’re presupposing that you know the truth, therefore your argument is self-refuting. So I suggest you stop using philosophy to dismiss philosophy.

That you base your argument on the fact that there is a problem with perception destroys any argument that you try to make. If you accept that the universe correspondes to the reality that we experience then base your argument against science on that otherwise you lose your own argument to yourself.

Wrong, I don’t need perception to come to the conclusion that ‘I exist’

Cogito ergo sum

The reasoning 'It’s impossible to doubt the fact that I am thinking', doesn’t rely on perception it just relies on thought. So your objection fails.

If your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty because of the necessity of a presuposition then you can't claim to know that anything is true.

Luckily for me this isn’t my argument.

And just how do you know any of this to be true?

There are many ways to argue for abstract objects, one of them is pointing out the objectivity of propositions and possible worlds are objects.

As Greg Welty points out, objectivity is a condition on propositions because it follows from the grammatical and quantificational arguments that propositions are objects, entities which are intersubjectively available and mind-independent, existent independently of the subjects who take up various attitudes towards them.

If you are speaking of gaining knowledge, then when you gain it you know, analogously speaking, that you are moving forwards.

How? Is it intuitive? C-fibers in the brain shifting a certain way?

You mean that philosophy can't prove anything?

Sure it can, here check this out


"We begin from the idea that there is some way the world is, and this, I believe, is an idea to which there is no intelligible alternative and which cannot be subordinated to or derived from anything else"

- Thomas Nagel 'The Last Word' pg 81

Philosophy proves that there is some way that the world is, and this is where everything starts off from.

Whether the universe is real or not, in the sense that it actually corresponds to our perception, is the highly likely assumption that I am basing my argument on. If you want to continue arguing on the bases that the universe may be a simulation of sorts then your own argument is of little or no practical value.

I’m not interested in what’s practical, I’m interested in ‘what is in actuality’

You are not concerned with what is true in actuality, by your own admission. I [and virtually all philosophers with me] am. So we will always be talking across each other. You only want to be allowed to have blind faith to believe what helps you life to "work" for you. In the meantime you are not claiming anything about what is really real or true. So we have no basis for an epistemological discussion and that's all I'm interested in here - epistemology - not subjective heuristics

Your very premise is speculation since it begins with "if" so proves nothing. Do you have another premise that is absolutely true and proven to be so by philosophy?.

I see you're philosophizing and trying to teach me things about the world, well are you absolutely sure about your claim that you made?

Because the ‘if’ so is a proposition which EXISTS, therefore that proposition something that is necessarily true. Therefore the proposition in itself is something that is absolutely true, and your argument is palpably false.
Here is another thing philosophy proves

"We begin from the idea that there is some way the world is, and this, I believe, is an idea to which there is no intelligible alternative and which cannot be subordinated to or derived from anything else"

- Thomas Nagel 'The Last Word' pg 81

Sure. Now where is Dennets claim that philosophical speculation itself proves anything

Well if you think science can absolutely prove things to be true, but yet science cannot work without philosophy then philosophy ultimately plays a part in proving things, but luckily for you I don’t think science can prove anything, so that quote was just to show you the fact that we science doesn’t go anywhere without philosophy holding its hand.

Yes really. Theres this thing called common sense. Language means what we intend it to mean. When we say that something matters we mean that it matters to us.

IF it were only that easy with postmodernists and nominalists who don’t think that there isn’t any objectivity when it comes to language, even when it comes to the ‘logic’ of it.

Though I’m glad that you just gave me a philosophical fact that one learns in a philosophy of language classroom.

How can you, who because of your presupposition and faulty perception, knows nothing with certainty, make such a claim?

Well I’ve went over this many times, however I do notice the fact that you try and avoid the elephant in the room when it comes to the limits of science. You constantly try and brush things off as if things don’t really matter is science can’t figure things out (ie: Simulated reality) this is just another case of denial.

First of, thats a different argument. Philosophy is speculation based on reason and logic, which is an aid to science, but philosophical speculation isn't proof of itself.

Then this philosophical statement of yours right here is speculation based on your reason and logic, though it isn’t a proof, do you agree? Or were you trying to tell me something about how the world REALLY is, as in you were trying to tell me something that was absolutely true? If the latter, then you’re refuting yourself.

Tell it to Jackson Pollack!

Why? Does the objective truth depend on his opinion or something?

BTW Cornell, I don't have near the patience or beneficence of Tass, so i can no longer reply to you if you refuse to make it difficult by not using the quote facility as it is intended to be used.

Your whining has been noted, please stick around as I enjoy debating those who hold to scientism.