Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[JimL]

Why would you ask me that question if you don't think there's any substance to the idea of Buddhas living on other planets? If you choose neither, then you're in agreement with me. You might as well ask yourself the same question.

But I'm not in agreement with you, I have no idea what does or does not live on other planets in far away galaxies. You said that you do know, that you don't need empirical evidence in order to know. So, I'm just asking, how do you know?

[Adrift]

But I'm not in agreement with you, I have no idea what does or does not live on other planets in far away galaxies.

You're contradicting yourself JimL. You just got done telling me that you neither believe that Buddhas exist on other planets, nor that you are agnostic about Buddhas living on other planets. That leaves only one other option, that you do not believe Buddhas live on other planets, which is the view I hold. Now you're telling me you ARE agnostic about the idea.

You said that you do know, that you don't need empirical evidence in order to know. So, I'm just asking, how do you know?

I never said that I don't need empirical evidence in order to know. Do you have empirical evidence for Buddhas living on other planets?

[JimL]

You're contradicting yourself JimL. You just got done telling me that you neither believe that Buddhas exist on other planets, nor that you are agnostic about Buddhas living on other planets.

Not sure where you're getting that from Adrift, I never said any such thing. What I just got through saying was that I have no idea what does or does not live on other planets in far away galaxies.

That leaves only one other option, that you do not believe Buddhas live on other planets, which is the view I hold. Now you're telling me you ARE agnostic about the idea.

What you or I believe has nothing to do with the question, you said that know what doesn't live on other planets if far away galaxies. I'm just asking you how you know? If you didn't mean to say that you know, then don't make a thing out of it, just say so.

I never said that I don't need empirical evidence in order to know. Do you have empirical evidence for Buddhas living on other planets?

Ah, actually yes you did. You said that you don't need to go to far away planerts in far away galaxies, in order to know what doesn't live there.

[Adrift]

Not sure where you're getting that from Adrift, I never said any such thing.

Yes you did. Watch, I asked you,

"Are you saying that you believe that there are Buddhas living on other planets in our universe, or are you saying you're completely agnostic to the idea; That there might be other Buddha's living in the universe?" That was in post #823. You replied to me in post #824 "Neither".

What I just got through saying was that I have no idea what does or does not live on other planets in far away galaxies.

Okay. So then you are agnostic to the idea of Buddhas living on other planets. In your mind it's possible either way.

What you or I believe has nothing to do with the question, you said that know what doesn't live on other planets if far away galaxies. I'm just asking you how you know? If you didn't mean to say that you know, then don't make a thing out of it, just say so.

The answer is really simple. Unlike you, I do not believe one is required to accept just any old claim that lacks evidence. Unlike the existence of God, which I think there is plenty of good evidence for (see post #788), I don't know of any evidence for Buddha's living on other planets. No evidence in this thread has been offered for Buddha's living on other planets. The only thing that has been presented is rossum's say so. The text he offered for examination certainly does not spell that claim out, and my research into the subject, and more importantly, the discussions I had with other Buddhists clarify that the texts rossum offered do not imply what he asserted.

If, JimL, you can provide evidence for the claim that Buddha's live on far away planets, I'll be happy to investigate the evidence you provide to see if it is compelling, barring that, I'll assume that the claim is as empty as the claim that little pink unicorns exist on other planets. You're free to remain agnostic about the existence of pink unicorns and extra-planetary Buddha's if you like. I won't be following you down that road.

[Adrift]

Ah, actually yes you did. You said that you don't need to go to far away planerts in far away galaxies, in order to know what doesn't live there.

Looks like you edited your post and added this sentence. I never said anything one way or the other about empirical evidence. Those are words you've been attempting to stuff into my mouth (or fingers as they case may be). I'd examine any sort of evidence, it doesn't need to be empirical. What sort of evidence are you providing for Buddhas living on other planets? I'm assuming you'll be changing your faith tag after this discussion, right?

[JimL]

Looks like you edited your post and added this sentence. I never said anything one way or the other about empirical evidence. Those are words you've been attempting to stuff into my mouth (or fingers as they case may be). I'd examine any sort of evidence, it doesn't need to be empirical. What sort of evidence are you providing for Buddhas living on other planets? I'm assuming you'll be changing your faith tag after this discussion, right?

Why are you being a jerk? What you said was that you didn't need to go to far away planets in far away galaxies in order to know, not in order to believe, but in order to know what doesn't live there.
Is it that difficult for you to just admit that you made a mistake, to admit that you can't know what may or may not live on other planets in far away galaxies?

[Adrift]

Why are you being a jerk? What you said was that you didn't need to go to far away planets in far away galaxies in order to know, not in order to believe, but in order to know what doesn't live there.
Is it that difficult for you to just admit that you made a mistake, to admit that you can't know what may or may not live on other planets in far away galaxies?

I've already explained the reason why I know these things do not exist. Provide your evidence to the contrary, and I'll give it a fair inspection. You're free to remain agnostic about things like Buddhas living on other planets, and pink unicorns, and whatever other nonsense someone tells you exists without offering a shred of evidence. I will not be doing the same.

[JimL]

I've already explained the reason why I know these things do not exist. Provide your evidence to the contrary, and I'll give it a fair inspection. You're free to remain agnostic about things like Buddhas living on other planets, and pink unicorns, and whatever other nonsense someone tells you exists without offering a shred of evidence. I will not be doing the same.

Headstrong eh. So, whatever you don't have evidence for in this universe, you have certain knowledge that it doesn't exist anywhere else in this universe as well. Is that what you are saying?

[Adrift]

Headstrong eh. So, whatever you don't have evidence for in this universe, you have certain knowledge that it doesn't exist anywhere else in this universe as well. Is that what you are saying?

[JimL]

Except that no one is asserting anything but you. I didn't assert that I know anything one way or the other, it is only you who asserted that you know.

Don't think it went unnoticed that you attempted to move the goal post just now either. You went from asking me how I could "know" to how I could have "certain knowledge" (and by "certain" I'm assuming you mean "absolute"). No one outside of an omnipotent being has "certain knowledge" about anything, but no one requires "certain knowledge" to claim that they "know" a thing. All of us have claimed to know things without having "certain knowledge" about those things.

Claiming to know is claiming to have certain knowledge Adrift. That was exactly your claim. Seriously, quit while you're behind, this is getting embarrassing for you.

[Adrift]

Except that no one is asserting anything but you. I didn't assert that I know anything one way or the other, it is only you who asserted that you know.

Claiming to know is claiming to have certain knowledge Adrift. That was exactly your claim. Seriously, quit while you're behind, this is getting embarrassing for you.

I'm not at all embarrassed. I believe I'm making very reasonable and logical points. If you feel embarrassed for me, then feel free to stop replying. No one's forcing you to continue your engagement.

But anyhow, no, there is quite a bit of debate in philosophy concerning our ability to have certain (absolute) knowledge. For reference, check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on Certainty,

Like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. (In a derivative way, certainty is also an epistemic property of subjects: S is certain that p just in case S's belief that p is certain.) Although some philosophers have thought that there is no difference between knowledge and certainty, it has become increasingly common to distinguish them. On this conception, then, certainty is either the highest form of knowledge or is the only epistemic property superior to knowledge. One of the primary motivations for allowing kinds of knowledge less than certainty is the widespread sense that skeptical arguments are successful in showing that we rarely or never have beliefs that are certain (see Unger 1975 for this kind of skeptical argument) but do not succeed in showing that our beliefs are altogether without epistemic worth (see, for example, Lehrer 1974, Williams 1999, and Feldman 2003; see Fumerton 1995 for an argument that skepticism undermines every epistemic status a belief might have; and see Klein 1981 for the argument that knowledge requires certainty, which we are capable of having).

[Kbertsche]

Incorrect! Methodological naturalism, the essential component of science, does not allow for miracles.

MN simply rules out miracles as part of scientific explanations. But it does not and cannot rule out rule out the possibility of miracles occurring at all (outside of science). Jim is correct that MN is agnostic concerning the existence of miracles.

BTW, Do you know who first coined the term "methodological naturalism"? Do you know that he was an evangelical Christian who himself believed in the existence of miracles?

To invoke a supernatural explanation is to end up with a god-of-the-gaps scenario, thus effectively abandoning scientific methodology altogether.

This would only be the case if supernatural explanations were to be included as part of science. If supernatural explanations are kept outside of science, they have no effect on scientific methodology.

[rogue06]

BTW, Do you know who first coined the term "methodological naturalism"? Do you know that he was an evangelical Christian who himself believed in the existence of miracles?

To clarify, that was Paul de Vries, while a professor at Wheaton College which is a conservative Christian evangelical school where the faculty agree to a statement of faith that says

[Tassman]

To clarify, that was Paul de Vries, while a professor at Wheaton College which is a conservative Christian evangelical school where the faculty agree to a statement of faith that says

This doctrinal statement of Wheaton College, "is reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff". "It provides a summary of biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity. The statement accordingly reaffirms salient features of the historic Christian creeds, thereby identifying the College not only with the Scriptures but also with the reformers and the evangelical movement of recent years. The statement also defines the biblical perspective which informs a Wheaton education. These doctrines of the church cast light on the study of nature and man, as well as on man's culture."

http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton...tional-Purpose

One can see that it may inhibit the full implementation of scientific methodology.

[Tassman]

MN simply rules out miracles as part of scientific explanations. But it does not and cannot rule out rule out the possibility of miracles occurring at all (outside of science). Jim is correct that MN is agnostic concerning the existence of miracles.

BTW, Do you know who first coined the term "methodological naturalism"? Do you know that he was an evangelical Christian who himself believed in the existence of miracles?

So?

This would only be the case if supernatural explanations were to be included as part of science. If supernatural explanations are kept outside of science, they have no effect on scientific methodology.

If supernatural explanations are kept outside of science then they are unverifiable faith-beliefs.