In order to distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACT from GNOSIS/OPINION.In order to QUANTIFY properties that can be engineered into useful systems.How is "useful" devoid of opinion?
What "point" are you trying to highlight? Sure, GLOMPRANO-WAVES "might" "exist" "undiscovered". How is this claim even remotely useful?All the more reason the statements mentioned by secularmerlin contradict. If something does not necessarily require tests to exist, but also require tests to "claim" existence, then what is the function of the first statement?
...how do tests preclude you from being duped by "con-artists"?
(P1) Athias = happy.(P2) Athias's cousin = happy.(C1) Athias is functionally indistinguishable from Athias's cousin.
You need more than just relating them under the context of falisfiability.
What is "useful" if not qualia?
What is reliability if not qualia?
Uncertainty cannot be "reduced" because it necessitates certainty of the scope of that which you are uncertain.
Now if you're using uncertainty in a manner synonymous with "unsure" of "not confident," then what is "uncertainty" if not qualia?
The Scientific Method is not a DOGMA, but is validated by demonstrable efficacy (bridges, computers, medicine).The evaluation of which is informed by qualia.
You call it a computer; you call it a bridge; you call it medicine; you assert that what it does is distinct from what it doesn't do based on definitions used to rationalize your perception of it.
You can test for it, but it's contained within the scope of said perception.
Efficacious toward what? That you're capable of perception?
Logic is a regulation of consistent perception.
But ultimately what does consistency indicate? Value (qualia.)
15 days later
Well we are not going to accomplish anything so long as you feel no need to substantiate your claims and more especially if you don't even understand why you would be expected to. I wish you good luck finding an interlocutor more on your own level.
Well we are not going to accomplish anything so long as you feel
no need to substantiate your claims
and more especially if you don't even understand why you would be expected to.
Just to make sure we are staying on topic here is your original argument1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual (non imaginary) god(s) I do not accept that this is true though I am happy to accept that they have percieved stories told by other humans about some god(s) and or the concept of some god(s)3. Therefore God exists.This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises. I can percieve fiction but if all you mean is that god(s) exist at least as fiction then as I predicted your argument isn't saying very much.
I wish you good luck finding an interlocutor more on your own level.
Because continuing debate shows us that one persons logic is another persons illogic.
I'm a sceptic, so not incorrigible.
I accept a GOD principle but not myths embellished with fantasy.Show me real evidence of your particular god and I will be instantly converted.
It took you 15 days to not explain your position any better?
This is a good example.We agree a claim is not necessarily a REAL-TRUE-FACT.So, perhaps I must specify, a claim of REAL-TRUE-FACT demands empirical demonstration and or logical necessity.A claim of OPINION and or GNOSIS merely demands the credulity of the audience.
There are no "facts", only factual claims and non-factual claims.A "fact" may be (abstractly) "independent" from any claim (statement of claim) (the map is not the territory), however, nobody can discuss (entertain) a "fact" without making a statement (claim) of implicit "fact", for example "god($) is real".
What is "useful" if not qualia?Usefulness can be QUANTIFIED.What is reliability if not qualia?Reliability can be QUANTIFIED.Three-sigma limits is a statistical calculation where the data are within three standard deviations from a mean. In business applications, three-sigma refers to processes that operate efficiently and produce items of the highest quality.Three-sigma limits are used to set the upper and lower control limits in statistical quality control charts. Control charts are used to establish limits for a manufacturing or business process that is in a state of statistical control. [LINK]
Uncertainty cannot be "reduced" because it necessitates certainty of the scope of that which you are uncertain.Uncertainty is QUANTIFIABLE (relative to zero).Can you predict the future state of this device? (Y/N)How reliably can you predict the future state of this device (+/-3 sigma)?Now if you're using uncertainty in a manner synonymous with "unsure" of "not confident," then what is "uncertainty" if not qualia?Uncertainty is QUANTIFIABLE (relative to zero).Can you predict the future state of this device? (Y/N)How reliably can you predict the future state of this device (+/-3 sigma)?
Epistemology is what the boards of our house are made of. What is outside our house is noumenon.Metaphysics is what we stuff into the cracks between the boards in order to keep warm.Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics).One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.Freedom and equality are inversely proportional.It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
You can test for it, but it's contained within the scope of said perception.
Can you test for something beyond the scope of your perception?
Efficacy is a measure of reliable prediction.
Logic is omnipresent. Our limited ability to anticipate logical conclusions is a human condition.
Efficacy (QUANTA).
You don't owe me any explanation for your time frame
but I am still somewhat underwhelmed by your argument.
We will all tend to limit the scope of evidence, or perhaps more correctly, cherry pick suitable evidence and disregard evidence that doesn't suit our mindset.....As conditioned individuals, we have strongly established ideas that we protect, often zealously.I think that I have a pretty flexible mindset when it comes to creation hypotheses, in so much as I readily accept a GOD principle as logical. The hyperbole of accompanying religious myth is somewhat harder to take seriously, but I nonetheless acknowledge that myth will incorporate fact based data, though with a tendency to be somewhat exaggerated and fantastically embellished.Your particular use of the word "God" is very pertinent for some reason.... It somehow sums things up in nutshell....The accompanying rhetoric, though undoubtedly erudite, is rendered somewhat superfluous.
How you feel is irrelevant; as is anyone's feelings. I'm not trying to impress you. I'm submitting logically consistent arguments.
You have put forth the argument that santa claus exists.
Logical consistency does not always lead to truth.
It depends on how supportable the premises you are building on actually are.
Exactly.We all cherry pick.Therefore the same contention can be equally applied to theists.So stalemate as ever, though we are never keen to agree that this is the case.
No. I've put forth the argument that God exists.
Your argument is the belief = perception = existence. Some (small) humans believe in santa claus ergo your argument is that santa claus exists.If you see a problem with my argument please point put the specific logical flaw or offer a (specific defined well defined or logically necessary) counterfactual.
Either santa claus exists or your argument is flawed. Please try to keep up.
The rationale of my argument would certainly support the proposition of Santa Klaus's existence, that however does not mean that I'm the one who proposed, claimed, or posited it.
And a good day to you also. It was certainly interesting talking to an adult who still believes in santa claus.
Oh I think the real problem is that we are defining reality and existence differently but it is impossible to know without some clarification on your part. If you really don't care to do that then it is true that this conversation is not going to be fruitful.
1. Exist: to have actual being whether material or spiritual.
What does it mean to exist spiritually? What even is spirit? Also the whole point is that we are examining your argument to see if I was correct or incorrect in my assessment of it so don't get to hung up on my assessment before we have thusly examined said argument.
There's no need to modify the term exist with the adverb, "spiritually," especially since the description I've provided already includes for it. And by applying simple logic, it's rather simple to discern the meaning you seek. If to exist is as I described, i.e. to have actual being whether material or spiritual, then "spiritually" would denote that which is wholly or partly not material.
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"? What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?
Why does it need to be tested?
How else would we know it exists?
Also I do not understand the distinction you are making between believing in and believing to be real.
Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?
Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.
Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims. Fascinating. Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?
