|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 6, 2006 18:05:23 GMT -5
The largest gathering of athiests on a message board that I have seen, if you want a challenge, post here... www.infidelguy.com
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 8:03:24 GMT -5
Sounds tempting, but I probably time consuming. Hmmm....decisions decisions!!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 13:23:22 GMT -5
I consider this witnessing when I post there. It is almost the same as reading a tract. It is lots of fun but at the same time agonizing as they are so blinded by the devil.
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Apr 9, 2006 13:55:35 GMT -5
thanks for the site, we should go post some Truth on there and jack em' up!
|
|
|
Post by sjc1963 on Apr 15, 2006 12:35:22 GMT -5
You're all more than welcome to visit, but you should know that preaching is not tolerated by most. All we're interested in are facts, not blind faith. Show us your facts and we'll listen.
=====
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 13:02:25 GMT -5
sjc1963,
Are you an empiricist? You are only willing to believe something on the basis of empirical proof? Meaning there is no room for presuppositions at all in any shape or form?
If so, can you empirically prove to me that empiricism is the test by which we are to test all things?
Can you even empirically prove empiricism or is it maybe your ungrounded presupposition?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:11:06 GMT -5
You guys don't have enough members to actually pull off a board invasion. The only place this is going to land you is with more people posting things that you don't want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:14:58 GMT -5
sjc1963, Are you an empiricist? You are only willing to believe something on the basis of empirical proof? Meaning there is no room for presuppositions at all in any shape or form? If so, can you empirically prove to me that empiricism is the test by which we are to test all things? Can you even empirically prove empiricism or is it maybe your ungrounded presupposition? You're an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 13:19:47 GMT -5
Drsocc,
Please refrain from the abusive ad hominem attacks. You did not provide any sort of arguement against my arguement nor did you provide any sort of answer to my questions.
If empiricism is correct and it is the ultimate test for truth and error, then you must be able to prove empiricism using empirical proof.
The problem is that you can't. That is why you went straight to the abusive ad hominem attack, because you have no arguement. Empiricism is dogmatic and is just as much of a presupposition as anything else. Empiricism destroys itself and disqualifies itself from being the sole source of knowledge. It doesn't pass the requirements of it's own standards.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 15, 2006 13:22:23 GMT -5
Hey, a board invasion, that sounds like fun. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:23:27 GMT -5
Drsocc, Please refrain from the abusive ad hominem. You did not provide any sort of arguement against my arguement nor did you provide any sort of answer to my questions. If empiricism is correct and it is the ultimate test for truth and error, then you must be able to prove empiricism using empirical proof. The problem is that you can't. That is why you went straight to the abusive ad hominem attack, because you have no arguement. Empiricism is dogmatic and is just as much of a presupposition as anything else. Empiricism destroys itself and disqualifies itself from being the sole source of knowledge. It doesn't pass the requirements of it's own standards. Alright, fine. Which aspect do you want to talk about, the philisophical aspect or the scientific application?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 13:23:53 GMT -5
Evan,
Maybe we should focus on all the unreasonable arguements against God and His Laws that are now on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:26:46 GMT -5
You do understand that modern science and medicine is based off what is observable, right? Without an empirical methodology, making new headway in areas such as medicine would be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:28:49 GMT -5
Jesse is quickly reading as many wikipedia articles as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 13:32:39 GMT -5
In empiricism there is no room for any sort of philosophical arguementation. I do not see how conceptual relations have any room given the standards and requirements they are trying to use. They are saying that there is only room for empirical relations.
I believe in evidence. However evidence is limited and cannot be the sole source of knowledge as the empiricist claims and demands.
But please do not squirm around my direct question. This is the one question I'd like to discuss right now: Can empiricism be empirically proven or is it really a presupposition and thereby does not met the standards of itself?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:37:58 GMT -5
In empiricism there is no room for any sort of philosophical arguementation. I do not see how conceptual relations have any room given the standards and requirements they are trying to use. They are saying that there is only room for empirical relations. I believe in evidence. However evidence is limited and cannot be the sole source of knowledge as the empiricist claims and demands. But please do not squirm around my direct question. This is the one question I'd like to discuss right now: Can empiricism be empirically proven or is it really a presupposition and thereby does not met the standards of itself? Originally, "empirical" was used by the skeptic Sextus Empiricus to refer to those ancient Greek practitioners of medicine who rejected adherence to the dogmatic doctrines of the day, preferring instead to rely on the observation of phenomena as perceived in experience. (Sini, 2004) The doctrine of empiricism was first explicitly formulated by John Locke in the 17th century. Locke argued that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) on which experiences leave their marks. Such empiricism denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience. It is worth remembering that empiricism does not hold that we have empirical knowledge automatically. Rather, according to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained only from one's sense-based experience. As a historical matter, philosophical empiricism is commonly contrasted with the philosophical school of thought known as "continental rationalism" which, in very broad terms, asserts that much knowledge is attributable to reason independently of the senses. However, this contrast is today considered to be an extreme oversimplification of the issues involved, because the main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) were also advocates of the empirical "scientific method" of their day. Futhermore, Locke, for his part, held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone.[1] Some important philosophers commonly associated with empiricism include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. You have to read up before you start making wild claims about topics.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 13:54:49 GMT -5
Drsocc, You earlier accused me of having to go to wikipedia to find an arguement. That groundless attack of coarse was not true. But Drsocc, I just found your entire post, minus your last line, on wikkipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Philosophical_usage . I had a hunch you might have been using wikipedia since you accused me of it. Do I smell hypocrisy? Can you not come up with your own arguement? You said to me: Maybe you Sir ought to be doing the studying before entering into a debate. However, you only gave the history of empirism and a brief discription of it. You still have not answered my question. From the article you plagiarized from wikipedia, it stated clearly, "according to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained only from one's sense-based experience." So this is again my question; can empiricism be empirically proven or is it really a presupposition and thereby does not met the standards of itself? Did the empiricist come to the "knowledge" of empiricism by empirical proof?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:59:36 GMT -5
Drsocc, You earlier accused me of having to go to wikipedia to find an arguement. That groundless attack of coarse was not true. But Drsocc, I just found your entire post, minus your last line, on wikkipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Philosophical_usage . I had a hunch you might have been using wikipedia since you accused me of it. Do I smell hypocrisy? Can you not come up with your own arguement? You said to me: Maybe you Sir ought to be doing the studying before entering into a debate. However, you only gave the history of empirism and a brief discription of it. You still have not answered my question. From the article you plagiarized from wikipedia, it stated clearly, "according to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained only from one's sense-based experience." So this is again my question; can empiricism be empirically proven or is it really a presupposition and thereby does not met the standards of itself? Did the empiricist come to the "knowledge" of empiricism by empirical proof? Theres nothing wrong with reading wikipedia. I wouldn't really call it plagiarism to quickly copy and paste something that I obviously didn't write. Only a really dimwitted person would really think that I wrote that within a space of 30 seconds from your posting. Besides, from the legal action thread, this board isn't big on citations anyway. I have to ask you again, because you arn't really setting the stage here properly. Do you want to talk about modern philosophy, or the scientific method? My answer will be different depending on which one you want to talk about. Looks like Morluna shot you down in that other thread. Bummer buddy.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:01:20 GMT -5
I think the scientific method would be the most significant, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 14:02:59 GMT -5
Drsocc,
It is spelled, "plagiarism" and not "plagerism".
Please, feel free to take a swing at the question however you like. How does one come to prove empiricism?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:10:16 GMT -5
Drsocc, It is spelled, "plagiarism" and not "plagerism". Please, feel free to take a swing at the question however you like. How does one come to prove empiricism? Sorry about the typo. Read this first. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method . Make sure you understand it, and if you still have any questions, I will be happy to explain them for you.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 14:26:28 GMT -5
I may review the article later. However we are not in the type of debate when we just send each other links to articles we didn't write ourselves or possibly haven't even read ourselves. I want a one2one discussion with you over these issues.
I can't help but to think that you are completely avoiding the question because the question has no answer that backs up empiricism. You have posted seven times since I initially asked the question and you have yet to answer it.
This is as simple as I can word it. Anyone can feel free to take a swing at answering it with their own words. (Please no more links to the history or summary of empiricism. I want to hear directly from you).
How do you prove empiricism? Do you prove it rationally, pragmatically, empirically, or using a transcendental arguement?
Of coarse if the empiricist tries to prove empiricism by any means except empirical proof he is not only being inconsistent with the standard and requirement that he himself is trying to enforce on everyone else, but he is also disproving empiricism as the sole source for knowledge because he is appealing to other means to prove it.
Though I believe in evidence, evidence is limited. The empiricist is wrong to say that the only means of knowledge is empirical proof. An example in it's limitation: one cannot prove the laws of logic empirically.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:28:57 GMT -5
I may review the article later. However we are not in the type of debate when we just send each other links to articles we didn't write ourselves or possibly haven't even read ourselves. I want a one2one discussion with you over these issues. I can't help but to think that you are completely avoiding the question because the question has no answer that backs up empiricism. You have posted seven times since I initially asked the question and you have yet to answer it. This is as simple as I can word it. Anyone can feel free to take a swing at answering it with their own words. (Please no more links to the history or summary of empiricism. I want to hear directly from you). How do you prove empiricism? Do you prove it rationally, pragmatically, empirically, or using a transcendental arguement? Of coarse if the empiricist tries to prove empiricism by any means except empirical proof he is not only being inconsistent with the standard and requirement that he himself is trying to enforce on everyone else, but he is also disproving empiricism as the sole source for knowledge because he is appealing to other means to prove it. Though I believe in evidence, evidence is limited. The empiricist is wrong to say that the only means of knowledge is empirical proof. An example in it's limitation, one cannot prove the laws of logic empirically. Hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:31:12 GMT -5
"It is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe. You must appreciate that observation is a very complicated process. The phenomenon under observation produces certain events in our measuring apparatus. As a result, further processes take place in the apparatus, which eventually and by complicated paths produce sense impressions and help us to fix the effects in our consciousness. Along this whole path—from the phenomenon to its fixation in our consciousness—we must be able to tell how nature functions, must know the natural laws at least in practical terms, before we can claim to have observed anything at all. Only theory, that is, knowledge of natural laws, enables us to deduce the underlying phenomena from our sense impressions. When we claim that we can observe something new, we ought really to be saying that, although we are about to formulate new natural laws that do not agree with the old ones, we nevertheless assume that the existing laws—covering the whole path from the phenomenon to our consciousness—function in such a way that we can rely upon them and hence speak of “observation”." - Einstein
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 15, 2006 14:35:37 GMT -5
Jesee, Your probably right. There is alot of Godlesness here now.
If science is based on what is observable, then why do many scientists so called 'observe' the theory of evolution. Have you seen it happen? And if so prove it.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:46:26 GMT -5
Jesee, Your probably right. There is alot of Godlesness here now. If science is based on what is observable, then why do many scientists so called 'observe' the theory of evolution. Have you seen it happen? And if so prove it. Evolution is not a matter of debate. It is the cornerstone of modern biology. I will take the same road the NAS took in this instance. You can talk about the Discovery Institute all day long, the fact remains that they have only had one peer reviewed journal article which was subsequently yanked due to it having no significant backing.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 14:46:53 GMT -5
In other words Drsocc, you have no answer to my question on how do you prove empiricism.
There is no way to empirically prove empiricism. The empiricist simply assumes dogmaticly his empiricism and then tries to tell Christians to prove God empirically.
However the empiricist is asking us to build on faulty grounds, to fight our battle on their field.
The empiricist is accepting his empiricism on "blind faith". Empiricism, when it comes to the question of God's existence, is ultimately begging the question. From their starting-point they have already excluded the possibility of God because God is invisable and not material.
The empiricist is a hypocrite (doesn't abide by his own standards) and a fool (because empiricism is foolish) all because he does not want to submit to the Lordship of Christ. Sinful men make up their own foolish wisdom all to justify their wicked sin.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:47:41 GMT -5
I have owned this thread left, right and sideways.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:48:48 GMT -5
In other words Drsocc, you have no answer to my question on how do you prove empiricism. There is no way to empirically prove empiricism. The empiricist simply assumes dogmaticly his empiricism and then tries to tell Christians to prove God empirically. However the empiricist is asking us to build on faulty grounds, to fight our battle on their field. The empiricist is accepting his empiricism on "blind faith". Empiricism, when it comes to the question of God's existence, is ultimately begging the question. From their starting-point they have already excluded the possibility of God because God is invisable and not material. The empiricist is a hypocrite (doesn't abide by his own standards) and a fool (because empiricism is foolish) all because he does not want to submit to the Lordship of Christ. Sinful men make up their own foolish wisdom all to justify their wicked sin. You're still wrong. Go read the article. I refuse to debate someone who doesn't understand the subject wants to talk about. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:49:45 GMT -5
Also, one wouldn't go about "proving" an empirical methodology.
|
|