Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think you mean, "Does a rationalist *say* they base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data?". Because everyone uses empirical data, logic, and reasoning as a default to operate in their daily lives....
Well since we have already established that you are not a rationalist, there is no reason to continue discussing this point since I don't think we are going to agree and it is really no longer relevant.
I've answered your question.
Where specifically? Why is it so difficult to provide a clear answer? You said yourself that everyone appeals to circular reasoning. I asked, "What is the final authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning?" A clear answer would look something like, "_________ is my final authority that I appeal to." This was your answer:
It is simply a matter of practicality. Without some basic axioms, we would not be able to function in the world. It seems you are trying to shoehorn your beliefs in here, but what the 'Bible says is true and false' really isn't a necessary to function as evidenced by billions of people functioning without this presupposition.
Where is the specific "what" that would fill in the blank to answer my question? The only two possible options might be "It" or "some basic axioms" and neither of those are specific.
Is it true, as you said, that everyone appeals to circular reasoning? If so, that means you appeal to circular reasoning, even if it is a justified appeal. So unless you disagree with what you previously said, that means there is some final authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning. In the clearest possible terms, are you willing to tell me what the final authority is that you appeal to in your circular reasoning?
"My final authority is ___________."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You say "no" and provide the exception...which applies to everyone. It sounds like a 'yes' to me...
Does a rationalist base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data or experience? If not, then not everyone reasons that way, even if there is inconsistency in how they act.
It is simply a matter of practicality. Without some basic axioms, we would not be able to function in the world. It seems you are trying to shoehorn your beliefs in here, but what the 'Bible says is true and false' really isn't a necessary to function as evidenced by billions of people functioning without this presupposition.
You did not actually answer the question. I assume you meant your own subjective reasoning since you did not disagree, but I don't want to misrepresent you. What is the final authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning? You don't have to compare it to my position. A straightforward answer will suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Isn't this what everyone's reasoning uses?
No, it's not. Perhaps practically they do as they live their lives, but empiricists and rationalists do not adhere to that line of reasoning as a foundation for validating truth.
Get to the point, please.
I'm trying, but you used the term "logic" in such a way that it seemed like you were a rationalist. We have since clarified you are not. But straightforward answers instead of "Eh?" would also be helpful.
To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true #119
Is this true? If so, what is the authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning, however justified you think it may be?
Note, I am not arguing it is always fallacious to use circular reasoning. I am making the point that your final authority in determining what is true is you. As long as you can convince yourself something is reasonable, you can accept it as true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then why did Polytheist-Witch fail to respond when asked to provide an example of how Paul contradicts Christ in Acts 17:24-31? #14
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What was confusing? While we've perhaps taken the roundabout way of getting there, it seems like that would be accurate to say now that we've cleared up some terminology issues. And the idea of using reason based on logic and empirical evidence is also the foundation of the scientific method. I'm just trying to see if you would agree about that being an accurate representation of your position so as not to make too many assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I only brought up the paradox as a response to highlight the distinction between logic and reason after you said logic (as opposed to "personal reason") was your final authority. But we can drop the paradox issue because, unless I am misunderstanding you, you have since made clear that it is not objective logic that you appeal to. Rather, you appeal to subjective reasoning as your final authority. And subjective here is not meant to carry a negative connotation.
But to make sure I am not misunderstanding you, would this summary from my last post be an accurate representation of your view:
"It seems rather that your subjective reasoning uses a combination of logic and empirical evidence. And this subjective reasoning is the final authority that you appeal to as the foundation for validating a truth claim."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think you're using 'logic' and 'reasoning' synonymously here.
I don't think so. I'm just making the point that logic, as I have defined it, is an abstract concept. It is an objective tool that we use in our subjective reasoning. I am also distinguishing logic from empirical data. Information we receive through our senses is not an abstract concept. Rather, it is a particular phenomenon that we experience. If you appeal to logic alone (the objective tool) in your reasoning process, Zeno's dichotomy paradox seems like a reasonable conclusion. However, when you appeal to empirical evidence (as you did), the conclusion of the dichotomy paradox no longer seems reasonable.
So, if you appeal to logic alone (the objective tool) without also appealing to empirical evidence, it can lead you to absurd conclusions. But it doesn't seem then that logic (the objective tool) is your final authority.
It seems rather that your subjective reasoning uses a combination of logic and empirical evidence. And this subjective reasoning is the final authority that you appeal to as the foundation for validating a truth claim. It is worth noting that I am not saying this position is unreasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you using logic and reason synonymously? Because I am making a distinction between logic (an objective tool, including laws of logic) and reason (the subjective process by which we arrive at conclusions using logic and other means). You seem to be using the term logic to refer to both. Clarification would be helpful.
If you, for whatever reason, decide to move shorter and shorter distances (ad infinitum) while moving slower and slower velocities (ad infinitum), you won't reach your destination. That follows. In the real world we don't do that and arrive at our destinations. That follows. I don't see the problem...
Are you familiar with Zeno's dichotomy paradox? I am simply saying that using logic alone, the premise holds up. You need to appeal to some other form of reasoning to disprove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
First, it's not "my reason" - it's logic. ...and we (ie. Humanity) accept it because no observation has ever contradicted it - it has withstood considerable scrutiny....Zeno's paradox is a paradox in name only, but I take your point - logic is a tool, and like all tools there are some situations where it does not work well. To that, I say "so what?" Does that mean it has no value or that is isn't a very versatile tool? No.
So is logic an infallible truth that has never been contradicted, or is it a versatile tool that can sometimes be paradoxical?
You can read it however you like, but there is a reason your Biblical standard of justification is a textbook example of circular reasoning and logic is not. I am apparently incapable of explaining it in a way you can understand.
You said previously, "To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true..." as you went on to justify your version of circular reasoning while claiming mine is fallacious. I however disagree and think that my circular reasoning of appealing to the Bible as my final authority is completely reasonable. So how do we objectively determine who is right? We obviously wouldn't just appeal to a textbook to establish the validity of a claim...
That is an awful analogy. I don't see how it can be applied to this scenario at all
It's not an analogy. I was referencing one of Zeno's paradoxes in which logic can be used to justify the claim you can never move from point A to point B. You and I both know that is ridiculous, but logic would tell us otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
First, it's not "my reason" - it's logic. ...and we (ie. Humanity) accept it because no observation has ever contradicted it - it has withstood considerable scrutiny.
Logic is an abstract and impersonal concept. You apply logic by means of your personal reasoning. However, logic by itself is not infallible. Zeno's paradoxes demonstrate that logic can be unreasonable.
Circular reasoning which adds nothing new to the conversation is fallacious. To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true, but the fallaciousness comes in the small circles
You can add whatever qualifications you want, but what I read here is, "My circular reasoning is reasonable, and your circular reasoning is fallacious."
Again, if you use logic as your point of final authority and circular reasoning, you should never be able to move (because moving from one spot to another requires you to first reach a halfway point. But to reach the first halfway point, you have to reach the next halfway point. And there are an infinite number of halfway points....).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'll just make my point so it doesn't seem tangential. Circular reasoning is not necessarily invalid if the reasoning is based on a valid premise:
If the Bible is true, then circular reasoning based on the Bible claiming it is true is not fallacious - though it may not be particularly persuasive to someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nonsense. I'm not the arbiter of evidence or logic - nor do I claim to be. I think you might be projecting a bit here.
I think the jury bit is fair, but perhaps the example of judge was premature without digging a bit deeper into your view.
You are the one who seeks to avoid "rational argumentation" because, seemingly, you think it is secondary to your own standard.
I do not avoid or abandon rational argumentation in general. My overall participation on this site is evidence of that. Since my intention here is not to persuade through exhaustive rational arguments in this specific forum post, yes I have intentionally avoided going down that rabbit hole. That may seem absurd to you, but here we are.
Turtles all the way down, eh?
We all have to appeal to some degree of circular reasoning eventually because we all have a final authority. It seems that personal reasoning based on available evidence is yours ("A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid."). So you may have good reason to trust your reason based on evidence or experience. But you must ultimately appeal to your reason to justify your reason:
"It is reasonable to trust my reason."
"How do you know?"
"Because I reasoned that it is based on ______."
Now even if you disagree about that conclusion, perhaps it should be asked: what is wrong with circular reasoning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
1. If you want to persuade others, then you'll necessarily need to convince them. You alone being convinced isn't sufficient reason for others to be convinced.
I agree. But as I stated, I am not seeking to persuade you that Paul's message is true through the kind of exhaustive rational argumentation typical of debates here. I made a statement for the purpose of others to hear it as is and answer the question: is it true?
2. I'm actually curious how you define 'justified claim' now, since you seem to think my standards are subjective and unreasonable. This is my (provisional) definition - A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid.
Subjective, yes. Unreasonable, not necessarily. It seems you have a similar approach to that of a court room. But if we use that analogy, you would be the judge and the jury in that you determine the parameters for presenting evidence and declare the verdict. You are the final authority. And there is also always room for doubt, however small. But understandably, analogies are never perfect so I'm not trying to force meaning to your view with that.
My final authority is the Bible. My definition of a justified claim (also provisional) would be "that which the Bible affirms is true, and that which the Bible rejects is false." For example, the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth." Any truth claim that does not affirm that God created the heavens and the earth is then false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well all technology in heaven is compatible, so there will be no Apple products.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
To make sure I have been clear, I am not seeking to justify my claim in terms of providing rational argumentation to establish irrefutable evidence that what I am saying is true. I have already stated that was not my intention, though I'm willing to discuss since this is an open forum.
I am making the point that, as far as I can tell, a justified claim to you is simply that which you are convinced is true. Conversely, that which is unjustified is that which you are not convinced is true.
If that is the case, then a justified claim or justified answer is synonymous with your opinion. You then become the final arbiter and authority as to what is true. Which seems to be your justification for the claim that no one knows what happens after death - because no one has convinced you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you cannot even tell me what a justified answer is, then I see no reason to provide that which you will not define.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
So you cannot tell me what a "justified answer" is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Have I provided a rational argument trying to prove the existence of God or to establish the credibility of the Bible here? No, so you have not missed it. But I am sure we are both well aware of many of the arguments that exist, and you remain unconvinced that they provide justification for the Christian claim.
But you keep telling me I need to provide justified answers though, which is why I was asking a general question. What is a justified answer? And who or what decides if it is justified?
As an example, let's say I were to present the cosmological argument with all it's points and sub-points. You then offer rebuttals. At the end, I believe the cosmological argument provides justification for the existence of God, while you do not think it provides justification. How do we determine whether a justified answer has been given when we both disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
But it seems an answer is only considered justified if you think it is justified. While you can't abandon your own rationality, many people throughout history have disagreed with you and found the existence of God to be a completely rational truth that provides the only justifiable answer for life's big questions (Who are we? Why are we here? etc.) So how do we decide who is right?
You think my answers are unjustified. I think they are justified. So who determines what is considered a justified answer? And by what standard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I already told you what my aim was. We're both here having a voluntary conversation. You made the claim that no one knows what happens after death. I don't think it was wrong for me to read that as you saying, "I know that no one knows what happens after death." Clearly you meant something different, and now you have clarified that.
We don't have to talk about epistemology. But since your answers have fit your username fairly well, it seemed appropriate to ask how you can be so confident that other people are wrong when you don't seem to have a lot of answers yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Let me make sure I'm understanding your claim.
- No one has convinced you personally that they know what happens after death.
- Therefore, no one knows what happens after death.
Is that an accurate summary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How do you know that no one else knows?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not going to say that empirical evidence is at all times and in all places absolute proof of anything, senses can be fooled.
I do not disagree with this. But if that is the case, how can you know with absolute certainty that there is an ice cream truck outside your house? Especially if empirical evidence is not "absolute proof" of said ice cream truck? Doesn't there have to be some other final authority to appeal to if empirical evidence is not absolute proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You are not giving non-specific answers. You are giving non-answers. Let me try again. Can you know anything with absolute certainty? If so, please be specific in how you can know anything with absolute certainty. Saying "I don't see why not, I saw an ice cream truck today" is not a good answer. If you are unfamiliar with epistemology, let me know and I will move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That doesn't answer the question about specifically how you can know something for certain is true. That's fine if you can't know anything for certain, but just say that then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why is anything not true? Simply because it is.
Exactly! We agree on something.
But I didn't ask if Paul's message is refutable in a particular context, or whether it was a contextually true biblical interpretation. Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is either true or false simply because it is, which is why I asked: is it true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
To clarify how you know something with certainty then, would you say you know what is true based on your senses (empiricism)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
But can you know anything with absolute certainty? If so, how?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
And you know something is true if it has evidence and is not illogical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm simply asking, can you know that anything is true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So you cannot know that something is true. You can only know the probability of it being true, but without any certainty. Is that correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So if something has evidence, and it is not illogical, then it is true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I assume you have considered the topic of epistemology. So, what method do you use to determine if something is true? Or, how do you know what you know?
Created:
Posted in:
@BrotherDThomas
I should have copy and pasted the actual text from your comment #72 from the topic "Animals and the Afterlife" to have been more clear:
I should have copy and pasted the actual text from your comment #72 from the topic "Animals and the Afterlife" to have been more clear:
I don't have the time for the biblically challenged like you, therefore this is my last post to you. To save you any further embarrassment, I am going to have to BLOCK YOU, and subsequently, I am hoping that you will heal soon because of the wounds that 21C has inflicted upon you, and are obviously still with you at this late date. Try praying to Jesus to help you with your psychosis, okay, good luck!
I provided the link so we can see if you delete/edit the comment or not, or to confirm whether you lied about blocking me.
I have enjoyed reminiscing on SHAMING a PSEUDO-ATHEIST like you! Why don't you RUN AWAY to another site's comment section like you're good at!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You said these humans are right about some things and wrong about others, so what methods should we use to distinguish between which claims they are correct about and which they are not? Is it merely the fact that multiple humans made the claim that makes the claim irrefutable?
I almost forgot to respond to this. If something is true, it is by definition irrefutable. What makes Paul's message irrefutable is that it's true. You can agree or disagree, but that does not change whether or not the message is true.
As far as measuring the claims of the authors of the Bible, I would use a simple method. That which the Bible affirms is true. That which the Bible rejects is false.
For instance, one would have trouble making the argument that the Bible affirms Paul's previous belief that Jesus was not the Messiah. Similarly, one would have trouble making the argument that the Bible rejects Paul's claim that the Bible itself is inspired.
Basic rules of textual interpretation allow us to determine the meaning of the text of the Bible, which then informs us of what the Bible - and ultimately, God - affirms or rejects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was certainly aware that criticism and pushback were inevitable and I am fine with answering both. But my goal was not to get into a debate with atheists about theology. Stephen's inept handling of textual interpretation in comment #64 is a good reason why. Though it may have been carelessness since he probably just copied it from an atheist forum without checking his source.
But, perhaps I simply wanted people to read Paul's message in his own words, and then make a decision as to whether they believed it was true or not. You answered quite in line with your username: "I'm not inclined to think Paul's message is true. I see no reason to think Paul was talking about real things." I would have rather seen a different answer since eternal destinies are at stake. I do hope that you carefully read my comment #60 rather than skimming it because you think it's just more of that Christian nonsense. But I certainly can't force you to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why is anything true? Simply because it is, regardless of what you or I think. So I'll ask you the same question I asked SkepticalOne. If you read my reiteration of Paul's message in comment #60, then I ask: Is it true?
Created:
Posted in:
@BrotherDThomas (because, you know, I'm blocked...)
From comment #71 with updated links:
From comment #71 with updated links:
You continue to use the same verse (Proverbs 17:28) to try and shame people when YOU are the one who should be ASHAMED!!!https://www.debate.org/debates/Which-is-worse-The-OT-or-the-NT-when-it-comes-to-immorality/1/comments/5/https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/68244/P15/#834161https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2535-animals-and-the-afterlife?page=1&post_number=25You keep telling people to go to a "Children's Religious Forum" when YOU are the one who is not even COMPETENT ENOUGH TO BE ON ONE!!!https://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/3542120/1/#6638220https://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/501551/2/#3877297https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2535-animals-and-the-afterlife?page=2&post_number=34Perhaps your continual use of the SAME LIST of gods is TRUE EVIDENCE that YOU ARE Namby-Pamby21stCenturyCharlatan!!!https://www.debate.org/forums/Religion/topic/3494180/#6643465https://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/3592497/1/#6699191https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2153-dr-candp-franklin-mopac-and-other-fake-christians-a-word-about-god-again?page=1&post_number=1OR, maybe your incessant need to tell people "2+2=4, oil and water don't mix..." is TRUE EVIDENCE that YOU ARE Namby-Pamby21stCenturyCharlatan!!!https://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/3542120/1/#6638220https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/68295/#838093https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2153-dr-candp-franklin-mopac-and-other-fake-christians-a-word-about-god-again?page=1&post_number=1
Created:
Posted in:
BrotherDThomas, I can't tag you because I am blocked. Perhaps someone else will do the honors. But I kind of forgot about this little adventure of ours. It was like a trip down memory lane going back through it. These links were also from a time when I had far more free time and boredom to practice my search engine functions.
It seems like a strange coincidence that this DDO debate where I was 1_John_5.20 (where you RAN AWAY!) was dated 5/13/19. And "BrotherDThomas" on DebateArt, who uses the exact same phrasing and formatting as 21stCenturyIconoclast from DDO, joined DebateArt on 5/23/19.
Comments #62-72 show our interaction. Some of the links there don't work there so I'll repost them below.
I will also mention that comment #72 clearly shows that you did block me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Question my motives as you will, that doesn't change that everything I said in comment #57 is factually and verifiably true. This site has both a debate section and a forum section. But since you have some interest, let me ask a simple question. I'll reiterate Paul's message:
"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."-- Acts 17:24-31
And here is my summary of Paul's message:
God is Creator of all things and is Lord over all (Acts 17:24). He created mankind and is sovereign over kings and nations (v. 26). God is completely distinct and separate from creation (v. 29). God is not only Creator of mankind, but also Judge (v. 31). Since all are guilty of transgressing God's law - or guilty of sin - all must repent of their sins to be saved from the coming judgment (v. 30-31). The proof and assurance of salvation for those who repent is the resurrection of the Jesus Christ (v. 31).
So my simple question: Is Paul's message true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In my defense, I wasn't asking anyone to refute it. I simply stated something in an open forum and people can comment how they choose. If Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is objectively true, it doesn't matter whether I present a convincing argument. Nor does it matter whether you accept it. It is either true or it is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I will come back when you have the bollocks to address the above question.
Couldn't stay away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you saying that something is only true if humans subjectively "establish" that it's true? Do we all have to agree that something is true, or is majority vote sufficient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So in typical style of the christian on the backfoot, - you are now at the answering questions with questions of your own , stage.So, you don't want to answer this question then;
Isn't answering a question with a question answering a question? Would this quote then be an example of irony?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You don't strike my as an honest person who is actually interested in a conversation. So go ahead and count this as another "fundie" destroyed by your towering intellect if you like. If you won't tell me your point after I answered your question, there is no reason to continue. Dialogue is a two way street.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No I didn't. You missed where I asked what your point was and now you're just trying to distract from that.
But obviously you don't have one because you have given another NO then!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
BrotherDThomas is a anti-Christian troll. He blocked me here because I correctly identified him as 21stCenturyIconoclast from Debate.org. I think he was mad because I made him look a bit foolish over there. I really have no idea why anyone takes him seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have answered your question about Paul's use of the term resurrection in Acts 17:31. Are you going to make your point?
Or is that still a NO then?
Created: