|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:51:43 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. Oh man, and the whole thing about empiricists removing the idea of the existence of god is absolutely incompetant. John Locke discussed the idea of empirically proving the presence of god through natural order. I mean, what is the matter with you?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 14:52:05 GMT -5
This thread will always be open to you Drsocc if you ever feel like you could attempt to answer my simple little question rather then continue to avoid it.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:54:28 GMT -5
This thread will always be open to you Drsocc if you ever feel like you could attempt to answer my simple little question rather then continue to avoid it. I did, you just refused to read the answer. Twice over. The thread will always be open to you to perhaps one day do your homework before attempting to enter a "debate".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 14:57:29 GMT -5
I never said that there was no physical evidence for the existence of God. Rather I said that empiricism is wrong in it's thought that it is the only means of attaining knowledge and is also hypocritical and foolish because it doesn't abide by it's own standards.
Evidence is limited and is inadequate as the sole source of knowledge.
There is physical evidence for God - the entire world. However each individual will interpret the data by their already established presupposition; that there is or that there isn't a God.
John Locke said, "the mad man reasons rightly from the wrong presuppositions". If you have the wrong starting point you will have the wrong ending point. If you have the wrong premise you will make the wrong conclusion. And the empiricist has the wrong starting-point.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 14:57:42 GMT -5
Also, this thread is redundant in and of itself. My thread titled "Design" talks about this. I guess you just couldn't understand it all. Some of these ideas might be a little too heady for you.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 14:58:59 GMT -5
You posted a link to an article rather then expressing your own thoughts or giving your own concrete answer.
Are you able to give your own personal answer to the question "can you prove empiricism using empirical proof?"
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 15:00:02 GMT -5
I never said that there was no physical evidence for the existence of God. Rather I said that empiricism is wrong in it's throught that it is the only means of attaining knowledge and is also hypocritical and foolish because it doesn't abide by it's own standards. Evidence is limited and is inadequate as the sole source of knowledge. There is physical evidence for God - the entire world. However each individual will interpret the date by their already established presupposition; that there is or that there isn't a God. John Locke said, "the mad man reasons rightly from the wrong presuppositions". If you have the wrong starting point you will have the wrong ending point. If you have the wrong premise you will make the wrong conclusion. And the empiricist has the wrong starting-point. See Design thread.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 15:07:58 GMT -5
I ask for an answer and you quote wikipeda.
I ask for an answer and you send a link to wikipedia.
I ask for an answer and you tell me to go to another thread.
Can't you simply post an answer to the question in this thread? Can empiricism be proven with empirical proof?
Why don't you simply admit that the answer is no. You cannot empirically prove empiricism. Just admit it. The empiricist has blind dogmatic faith.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 15:08:35 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? I allways find this train of apologetics amusing. It is pure mental masturbation and doesn't gain any ground for your side. I don't need to account for empericism to use it, just like I don't need to account for my computer to use it. The best an apologist can hope to gain is simply that neither he nor you have an answer. Except, that usually, the apologist then tries to fill the gap with his faith. It's silly. It's not a reason to belive in your god. Empericism has served us well untill now, so as long as science and mankind keep advancing, we don't see a need to apeal to an imaginary skyman. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 15:13:09 GMT -5
yaro,
So you admit then that the empiricist simply assumes empiricism without any empirical proof?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 15:13:25 GMT -5
Saying that empiricism has no room for philosophical arguementation pretty much shows you the caliber of people you are talking to here.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 15:14:47 GMT -5
yaro, So you admit then that the empiricist simply assumes empiricism without any empirical proof? No, he is saying, to put it simply so you can understand it, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If it has worked so far, and advanced us this much, why should we tear down the foundations of sience in favor of whatever you're endorsing.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 15:15:15 GMT -5
Man, full member. I feel like a million bucks.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 15:28:31 GMT -5
yaro, So you admit then that the empiricist simply assumes empiricism without any empirical proof? Empericism is axiomatic, it assumes nothing. We have five senses, if I pluck out your eyes you no longer see, if I defen your ears, you no longer hear, if I rip out your nerves you no longer feel. It's intrensic to phisical reality. You, yourself, would have never known your god if it wasn't for your sense organs. No eyes to read the book, no ears to hear the word, etc. I don't need to assume anything. If you wish to deny empericism, by all means, pluck out your eyes. Now... who made these rules, how did they get here, etc. I don't know and you don't know. I'm comfortable with that. As far as I am concerned it's just the way things are. As someone has already said, if it aint broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 15:31:47 GMT -5
Empiricism by defintion, as you quoted form the wikipedia article, clearly states: "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."
Because of their definition they cannot endorse any sort of philosphical arguementation for empiricism. They are trying to say that conceptional relations are not good but only empirical relations prove anything at all. Therefore to prove empiricism, using their own standards, there must be some sort of empirical proof to prove it. That is, if you are going by their own definition of empiricism.
I am saying, and showing, that empiricism clearly is broken. It is inadequate and limited. For example, it cannot explain nor can it endorse the laws of logic because the laws of logic cannot be empirically proven.
But again if my arguement for Christianity was merely, "if it aint broke, don't fix it. It has worked so far and advanced us this much, why should we tear down the foundations of morality in favor of whatever you're endorsing." That type of arguement for Christianity you would immediately reject, and rightly so. So why would you use that arguement for empiricism?
But if yaro really was saying, "if it aint broke, don't fix it" then he is using pragmatic reasoning to justify empiricism, and therefore is contradicting the rules and regulations of empiricism itself.
Besides, there are many problems with pragmatism. Pragmatism teaches "whatever works best is right". But how do you determine what works best? It's based solely on opinion and is therefore arbitrary. One person says Christianity is best, another person says atheism is best. If pragmatism is the sole source of knowledge, how can you determine who is right and who is wrong?
You say empiricism! But don't you see that you tried to justify empiricism using pragmatism, and now your trying to justify pragmatism by empiricism! But you fail to prove that either are reliable or complete means for knowledge at all.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" - God
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 15:36:37 GMT -5
Empiricism by defintion, as you quoted form the wikipedia article, clearly state: "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." Because of their definition they cannot endorse any sort of philosphical arguementation for empiricism. They are trying to say that conceptional relations are not good but only empirical relations prove anything at all. Therefore to prove empiricism, using their own standards, there must be some sort of empirical proof to prove it. That is, if you are going by their own definition of empiricism. I am saying, and showing, that empiricism clearly is broken. It is inadequate and limited. For example, it cannot explain nor can it endorse the laws of logic because the laws of logic cannot be empirically proven. But again if my arguement for Christianity was merely, "if it aint broke, don't fix it. It has worked so far and advanced us this much, why should we tear down the foundations of morality in favor of whatever you're endorsing." That type of arguement for Christianit you would immediately reject, and rightly so. So why would you use that arguement for empiricism? But if yaro really was saying, "if it aint broke, don't fix it" then he is using pragmatic reasoning to justify empiricism, and therefore is contradicting the rules and regulations of empiricism itself. Besides, there are many problems with pragmatism. Pragmatism teaches "whatever works best is right". But how do you determine what works best? It's based solely on opinion and is therefore arbitrary. One person says Christianity is best, another person says atheism is best. If pragmatism is the sole source of knowledge, how can you determine who is right and who is wrong? You say empiricism! But don't you see that you tried to justify empiricism using pragmatism, and now your trying to justify pragmatism by empiricism! But you fail to prove that either are reliable or complete means for knowledge at all. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" - God There is so much wrong with the second half of this I am not even going to bother. Good luck scraping through life.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 15:39:09 GMT -5
But if yaro really was saying, "if it aint broke, don't fix it" then he is using pragmatic reasoning to justify empiricism, and therefore is contradicting the rules and regulations of empiricism itself. Besides, there are many problems with pragmatism. Pragmatism teaches "whatever works best is right". But how do you determine what works best? It's based solely on opinion and is therefore arbitrary. One person says Christianity is best, another person says atheism is best. If pragmatism is the sole source of knowledge, how can you determine who is right and who is wrong? Oh boy! This is where this stuff starts getting funny See what I mean? These apologetics are a symantics game, an attempt at trying to reduce emperical observation to arbitrary assertion which it clearly is not. If I hit you in the head with a sledgehammer you will die or be wounded. I can say this with a great degree of certaintly because of what I have empiricaly observed from sledgehammers in the past. Now, you can say that's just my arbitrary opinion. Thus, I invite you. Step right up, I have a sledgehammer. But then again, casting doubt on empercism on your part is simply a ploy. You want to sneek your god into the mix where he simply does not belong. Again, just because we cant acount for it, doesn't mean your god wins by default.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 15:41:48 GMT -5
I just don't understand why Jesse can't except something like the simple concept of natural order and feel it somehow threatens his belief system.
I seriously think he might take that hammer to the face and pretend that his fractured eye sockets are just your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sjc1963 on Apr 15, 2006 15:43:57 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? My tagline says it all. ===== Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Post by sjc1963 on Apr 15, 2006 15:50:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 15:51:43 GMT -5
Drsocc,
After watching your performance in this debate I wasn't expecting you to attempt to rebuttle my arguement.
Yaro,
I said pragmatism is arbitrary, not empiricism. I said empiricism is limited and inadequate. So you either misunderstood what I said or you built a straw-man.
sjc1963,
I already made the policy of no links as arguements. We want one2one discussion/debate.
Your tag lines says a lot about your epistomology - empiricism. However, back to the question the empiricist is too afraid to answer, can you empirically prove empiricism? Meaning, is there empirical proof for empiricism?
|
|
|
Post by sjc1963 on Apr 15, 2006 15:53:59 GMT -5
sjc1963, Your tag lines says a lot about your epistomology - empiricism. However, back to the question the empiricist is to afraid to answer, can you empirically prove empiricism? Meaning, is there empirical proof for empiricism? Can you prove that you're not some disembodied brain in a lab somewhere with scientists feeding in input about the world around you?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 15:57:53 GMT -5
sjc1963,
That is a red herring and is not the topic of debate. Please don't avoid the question, can you prove empiricism using empirical proof?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 16:02:25 GMT -5
I deleted your article because it is against our debate policy. You cannot post another mans article or a link to another mans article to make a rebuttle against an arguement. You can use small quotes if you'd like but you have to answer the direct questions yourself if we are ever going to get somewhere.
------------------------------
You have some time before you make a rebuttle against my arguements. I am going to take a break to make a phone call. So take some time and think. Don't post hastily.
|
|
|
Post by sjc1963 on Apr 15, 2006 16:04:47 GMT -5
sjc1963, That is a red herring and is not the topic of debate. Please don't avoid the question, can you prove empiricism using empirical proof? Of course you can. We are what we experience. Believing in something alone doesn't make it real. It must be falsifiable. That means that it has to be able to be tested weither it is true or not. God is not falsifiable, it is belief only.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 17:13:20 GMT -5
You said, "Of course we can" but what I am asking for is proof. What is the empirical proof that proves empiricism?
If your arguement is, "we are what we experience" that is not empirical proof. Here you are appealing to rationalism to attempt to prove empiricism. Which shows that you don't believe empiricism to be the "only" means of knowledge, because you appealed to the outside source of rationalism, thereby debunking your own arguement for empiricism.
You said, "it has to be able to be tested whether it is true or not." Right, but the question at hand is not whether we are to test, but what we are to test with. Your argument is that we are to test all things by empirical proof. But again, how do you test to see whether empiricism is an appropiate test?
It seems you are taking empiricism for granted, it also must be tested. But if empiricism is true, then it must be tested by empirical proof which drsocc, yaro, and yourself have failed to do. If you test empiricism by any other means then empirical proof then you are debunking your own arguement.
Empiricism begs the question of God's existence. The starting point of empiricism completely excludes the possibility of God because empiricism says you can only believe in what you see, touch, taste, or feel. If you include only the material then you completely exclude the possibility of the invisable whether the invisable be the laws of logic or God Himself.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 17:18:06 GMT -5
Empiricism begs the question of God's existence. The starting point of empiricism completely excludes the possibility of God because empiricism says you can only believe in what you see, touch, taste, or feel. If you include only the material then you completely exclude the possibility of the invisable whether the invisable be the laws of logic or God Himself. Oh wow! Dang! You put it like this, now it's obvious, imperscisim is absurd! I mean, not only does it exclude a god, It also excludes underpants gnomes! Seriously, don't you see how dumb that is? You are the one begging the question by sticking an unnecissary, unproven, diety in to plug the hole. Without sensory perception, without experience, there is no reality. Anything that cannot come thrugh our sensory organs will never be "real". That's a fact. Untill your god does come thrugh our sense organs, we have no reason to belive in him/her.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 17:24:32 GMT -5
Empiricism begs the question of God's existence. The starting point of empiricism completely excludes the possibility of God because empiricism says you can only believe in what you see, touch, taste, or feel. If you include only the material then you completely exclude the possibility of the invisable whether the invisable be the laws of logic or God Himself. Oh wow! Dang! You put it like this, now it's obvious, imperscisim is absurd! ::) I mean, not only does it exclude a god, It also excludes underpants gnomes! Seriously, don't you see how dumb that is? You are the one begging the question by sticking an unnecissary, unproven, diety in to plug the hole. Without sensory perception, without experience, there is no reality. Anything that cannot come thrugh our sensory organs will never be "real". That's a fact. Untill your god does come thrugh our sense organs, we have no reason to belive in him/her. Hi Yaro, don't believe I've met you yet. Nice to meet you, welcome to the fun. ^_^ You make a great point, but allow me to add one thing. All of what you said is true, and therefore no one can be expected to believe in God... unless they make the choice to do so by faith and personal philosophy. For that inidividual to condemn those who do not choose to believe in agreement with them however, would be unfair and wrong because their choice to believe or not to believe is rooted in a personal perception and belief. It cannot be expected to be transferable from person to person. Each individual is different and is therefore going to hold different perceptions of what is real. To force someone to believe your own reality is unfair and unjust. I think my entire thesis for my posts on this site reads as such: NO ONE IS RIGHT, AND NO ONE IS WRONG. THERE IS NO ONE TRUE ANSWER. Life isn't that simple guys.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 17:25:22 GMT -5
Yaro, I said pragmatism is arbitrary, not empiricism. I said empiricism is limited and inadequate. So you either misunderstood what I said or you built a straw-man. Nice sidestep, now why don't you address the meat of the argument and stop quibbling over details. You either prove your god by providing evidence of him, or you admit that it is only faith. The rest, is nothing more than semantics. P.s. I like the spell-check feature on the site, very cool!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 17:25:52 GMT -5
That is what we have been discussing all along. You haven't provided empirical proof for empiricism, you have simply said "empiricism is a fact". That is not an arguement neither it is a rebuttle to my arguements. Your empiricism is dogmatic. You believe it because you believe it. But as I have shown, empiricism destroys itself because it cannot abide by it's own standards and requirements.
If you do not believe in God because God is not One to be touched, tasted, smelled, or seen, then you also must deny the possibility of the laws of logic and reason itself because they too cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, or seen. Not only does empiricism self-destruct, the ultimate outcome of empiricism is absurdity.
Empiricism cannot be proven empirically and the empiricist has no reason to believe in reason, no logical explaination to believe in logic.
|
|