Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Argument From Reason...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    It was the precursor of the scientific method. Thucydides was considered the "father of scientific history" - Wiki. The historical method refers to the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past and dates back to the Classical era.
    That again is nonsense, you can not observe Caesar writing the Gallic Wars, nor can you repeat the experiment. It is not the scientific method, period.



    Subjective experiences are NOT as true as any objective fact discovered by science – they are not verifiable and may only be true for the individual experiencing it.
    That is the point block head! The fact that I had a cup of tea this AM is as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery. No one else had to witness it, no one else had to confirm it to make it true.


    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • "Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection."
      It is consistently observable that these reasoning abilities are generally reliable
      Therefore, they are generally reliable.


      Is this an accurate representation? Re-word it if you'd like.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post

        That again is nonsense, you can not observe Caesar writing the Gallic Wars, nor can you repeat the experiment. It is not the scientific method, period.
        The point being made is NOT that the historical-critical method is science, but that it was a precursor of science in that it practices objective research and the accumulation of verifiable facts - just as does scientific methodology.

        The fact that I had a cup of tea this AM is as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery. No one else had to witness it, no one else had to confirm it to make it true.
        Your cup of tea is NOT ‘as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery’ if it is not objectively verifiable. The psychiatric hospitals are full of people who subjectively believe they have experienced what that they have not. The same applies to the community at large.


        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

          [FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]Your cup of tea is NOT ‘as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery’ if it is not objectively verifiable.
          It is a non-verifiable fact, in common with many facts, which demonstrates the truth that not all facts are verifiable using the scientific method.

          A rock from a cliff is lying close to a railway track that runs past the cliff. Did it arrive at its location by falling, or by human intervention?
          The possibility that human intervention was a cause is in all probability not scientifically verifiable.

          According to naturalist application of logic:
          Because it could have arrived there by falling, the possibility that a human put it there is denied.
          Because it could have fallen from the cliff through natural causes, the possibility that it may have been dislodged by human intervention is denied.

          1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
          "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

            It is a non-verifiable fact, in common with many facts, which demonstrates the truth that not all facts are verifiable using the scientific method.
            Indeed. but that's not the topic. I was responding to the erroneous claim that: subjective experiences are "as true as any verifiable scientific discovery". They're demonstrably not.

            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

              Indeed. but that's not the topic. I was responding to the erroneous claim that: subjective experiences are "as true as any verifiable scientific discovery". They're demonstrably not.
              True insofar as it goes, but it can be (and often is) taken too far.
              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
              "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                The point being made is NOT that the historical-critical method is science, but that it was a precursor of science in that it practices objective research and the accumulation of verifiable facts - just as does scientific methodology.
                Good, when I said there were other ways to discover truth besides the scientific method, you balked. So now you agree...



                Your cup of tea is NOT ‘as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery’ if it is not objectively verifiable. The psychiatric hospitals are full of people who subjectively believe they have experienced what that they have not. The same applies to the community at large.
                Please tell me how my having morning tea is less of a fact or less true than anything discovered by science? Who says something has to be 'objectively verifiable' to be true?

                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment







                • Naturalism claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just sharing a thought I had this morning. Why would the physicalist processes of this natural world care about Ideals? What is Ultimately True should not matter in the genetic struggle for survival and reproduction.

                  Comment


                  • Ah. Perhaps for entertainment?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                      Naturalism claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just sharing a thought I had this morning. Why would the physicalist processes of this natural world care about Ideals? What is Ultimately True should not matter in the genetic struggle for survival and reproduction.
                      Exactly...

                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post

                        Exactly...
                        It's something you've already said numerous times. I woke up this morning with a fresh angle on it though. I can see why natural selection might aim for truth as far as identifying plants and animals and such...but aspiration for a greater understanding of philosophical truths? What would the point be? I see what you're saying now that it produced something diametrically opposed to it's nature.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post

                          Good, when I said there were other ways to discover truth besides the scientific method, you balked. So now you agree...
                          No, we don’t agree. The difference between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ truth is that the former is supported by substantive evidence and the latter isn’t.

                          Please tell me how my having morning tea is less of a fact or less true than anything discovered by science?
                          Without supporting evidence to the contrary, your claim could be based upon a faulty memory, or you could be dementing, certifiably insane or simply lying.

                          Who says something has to be 'objectively verifiable' to be true?
                          Nobody is saying that - something may well be “true”, but unless it is objectively verifiable it cannot be shown to be true; it can only be accepted at face value and could well be wrong.


                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post



                            Nobody is saying that - something may well be “true"

                            dat what he be sayin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                              Nobody is saying that - something may well be “true”, but unless it is objectively verifiable it cannot be shown to be true; it can only be accepted at face value and could well be wrong.
                              Oh good, so my morning cup of tea yesterday was a truism. And whether one can objectively verify it or not makes no difference to the truth of the matter.

                              Without supporting evidence to the contrary, your claim could be based upon a faulty memory, or you could be dementing, certifiably insane or simply lying.
                              Can you objectively verify that any of the above objections are actually the case?
                              Last edited by seer; 01-24-2022, 07:31 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                                Naturalism claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just sharing a thought I had this morning. Why would the physicalist processes of this natural world care about Ideals?
                                I don't think anyone claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just that it has a tendency to produce animals with senses and reasoning that are somewhat reliable, because that is advantageous to survival. Clearly, the physicalist processes don't need to care about anything to accomplish this. It just happens.

                                What is Ultimately True should not matter in the genetic struggle for survival and reproduction.
                                You do have a good point there. The less connected something is to our struggle for survival and reproduction, the less likely we are to be able to determine the truth about it. That may be why there is so much disagreement about philosophical questions where the answer doesn't have any real effect on our everyday lives.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                                36 responses
                                168 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 05-10-2022, 06:04 PM
                                5 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-02-2022, 09:53 AM
                                70 responses
                                380 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 04-24-2022, 06:02 PM
                                138 responses
                                757 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 04-20-2022, 12:01 PM
                                223 responses
                                1,299 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X