3RU7AL

maybe, sometimes, but you can't see anyone's level of sincerity

So far Tarik has not shown any poor judgement regarding  anyone's level of sincerity.

The context here made that very clear.

As for the BoP, I have none - I've not claimed to have solved Hard solispism and I'm not trying to persuade you. 

I agree.  The term "white privilege" exists to create intra-class division between whites and blacks, so everyone is distracted with issues that cannot be solved while those that can are rigged against both (within the middle and working classes).  

That's why the conversation needs to change.  All this discussion about so called "white privilege" does nothing to solve the underlying problems that create the metrics we say illustrate the trends.  But solving the problems seems like it might be more productive.  Or at least trying to do so. 

The Sumerian epic of the deluge predates  the biblical flood by thousands of years. The flood story is not the only biblical story lifted from the epics of Sumer and adopted by the Hebrew writers as part of their own history.

Prove that the Bible is a reliable source of information for what exists beyond the observable universe first.

Then I’ll repent.

we’re actually talking about is epistemology.

Nope, not at all, you are the first BOPer to answer, and you have pretty much acknowledged that you can’t hit the BOP pitch either, nobody can, so the question becomes, what is the point of pitching the BOP when there is no ball to hit, why do you guys think it somehow makes a relevant point about Theism.

BTW, it is the same with my Theism, the basis of my faith is not an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that philosophers devise for proving or disproving his likely existence. The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter, and it is validated by the resulting personal experience of liberation.  The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, belief is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, but for me it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. 

You answered both questions with reference to experiential evidence such as “I appear to observe” and “I know what that feels like”, at the same time acknowledging that you can’t meet the so-called burden of proof, which validates my point about the BOP game.  You can’t meet the BOP for belief in the existence of external reality or internal reality, what exactly is the point of the BOP game, what does it have to day about the existence of anything?

I made the point earlier that our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority.  The only thing we know in an unmediated manner is that we are conscious, Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” comes to mind.  Regarding external reality, all we can know are phenomena: things as they present themselves to us; things as they appear to us, not things as they are.  The world in its own right, the noumenal world, can only be inferred.

My point is that the BOP game is pointless, no belief can meet the BOP

I keep asking two questions:

1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?

Insofar as I appear to observe one - yes. But I can’t know for sure, and wouldn’t qualify it as a “belief” as much as an observation I have no basis to question.

2) Do you believe you are conscious?

Insofar as what I appear share what we all collectively define as consciousness. I neither know what it is, or whether it’s real though.

of course, it is logically impossible to interact with or observe anything that is fundamentally separate from us

therefore, we are merely aspects of a much larger organism

kinda like cells in a body

You have made an assertion here, the burdon of proof is on you.

"think of it as someone simply asking why they should care what you claim"

"why do you think this should be important to me"

Since you don't even claim to be conscious, why would I ask you anything?

i am functionally indistinguishable from an artificially conscious computer program

you're going to have just as much luck measuring "consciousness" as anyone has had trying to measure "free-will"

Oh, ok, so I suppose this means that whatever drivel you post, the burden of proof is on me, LOL.

of course, it is logically impossible to interact with or observe anything that is fundamentally separate from us

therefore, we are merely aspects of a much larger organism

kinda like cells in a body

That explains why separating external reality and being conscious of inner reality is so important.

Nope, I want to question your beliefs, but as I pointed out, all of you BOPers know it's a meaningless game, you are willing to serve, but you won't step up to the plate.

It's a Pavlovian game played unconsciously, prove me wrong.

but the point is, you don't have to

Can you, right now, prove a zircon fragment is 4.3 billion years old?

Looks more like sidestepping and less like Sidewalking.

Would it not then behoove us to allow the consequences of our decisions to be the regulator of our actions, rather than some arbitrary third party perpetually pointing a metaphorical gun at our heads?

Not really. The concern is when this segregation is forced. Infractions on one's right to freely associate is anti-capitalist, whether it's forced segregation or forced integration.

Since you don't even claim to be conscious, why would I ask you anything?

No, I'm actually pointing out the fact that the BOP game that you BOPers play is meaningless, pay attention.

I've provided 2 examples. One requires no specialized equipment. 

You give actual priests too much credit. Preists cannot justify their core beliefs or show them true. That is not true of, say, geologists.

so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS

I guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆

so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS

You see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.

You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.

think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claim

why do you think this should be important to me

I was already thinking of it as asking why they should care what you claim, and as someone who does not even claim to be conscious, I don't see why anyone would care what you claim.  

If you aren't conscious, then nothing is important to you, and there is no reason to play the BOP game.

I will logically conclude that the BOP game is played unconsciously, which explains why in practice, it appears to be so Pavlovian.

perhaps, but you have no way of knowing that

I know a conflicting argument when I see one.

Because something is defined by measurement does not mean it is true by definition - it is true by observation.

Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge. 

Because something is defined by measurement does not mean it is true by definition - it is true by observation.  The definition is dependent on evidence not the other way around. It seems to me you are suggesting anything with a definition cannot be knowledge.

Or deliberate deception on theirs.

Not it’s not, anything that conflicts with the truth is literally the definition of deliberate deception.

The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.

Not if your calling them a liar based on the conflicting arguments they present, we’ve been over this already.

The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.

that's an example of a tautology

I disagree and do not follow your reasoning. 

can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?

The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.

Faith, by definition, does not carry a burden of proof, and no matter how many times you repeat, it will not become valid.  

I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE

I believe the Bible has a story about a worldwide flood. Anyone can read the Bible and recognize my belief is justified - ie. knowledge.

Operative words being “substance of the argument” now explain to me how that’s much different from the influence of the dialogue?

The number of gumballs is either odd or even, that is not absurd reasoning.

That is not what you've been advocating. You are suggesting dismissing a claim of even (based on faith alone, not evidence) is equivalent to making an alternative claim of odd. That is absurd. That is not how logic works.

The crucifixion is justified and true knowledge.

Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?

I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.  

knowledge is simply data

people obviously have knowledge of both "unjustified" and "untrue" things

Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?