|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 16:47:27 GMT -5
I noticed that many of you rely on empricism as your main way of trying to find truth about reality. But tell me how you test your empiricism? You use the senses to try and prove that the evidence you found with your senses is true.
Two questions:
1) Are you the final aythority when it comes to truth? 2) If not, why should anyone listen to your self tested empirical evidence?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 17:08:14 GMT -5
Not to popular I guess.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 17:32:43 GMT -5
i am the final authority of my own life, and not neccesarily the truth. i am responsible for all of my actions, and i expect to pay the consequences of any action within my lifetime. this is merely cause/effect. i am not forcing people to agree with me, as you so boldly transformed the second question. i throw in my two cents, and you do what you wish with it. i try to provide evidence of why i do the things i do, and why i believe the things i believe.
you do the same thing. however, i do not 'need' to be right as you do. you have to be right, and you need to have the final word on any matter... ...i suppose it proves you as being 'right.'
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 17:43:44 GMT -5
Allow me to start with your secon quote first: 1) I believe what I believe for two reasons: - a) You, or for that matter anyone, have never proven my first
Principle wrong. - b) My first principle (the Bible) claims and is the final absolute
when it comes to truth. I am not that final authority, the Bible is.
2) You cannot empirically prove anything. If you prove it with your five senses, then all that can be proven is that you proved that particular thing with your five senses. Therefore you claim to be the final authority in terms of truth. now for your second quote: 1) Who says you are the final authority of your life? Do you say it? Can you prove it? I can however prove that you are not the final authority of your life. "we must all stand before the judgement seat of Christ". 2) You will reap what you sow. And you contradict youself. If you are the final authority, why exactly do you expect to pay for what you do? If you will pay for what you do there must be some higher authority that will make you pay?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 18:32:30 GMT -5
no. i cannot prove any of what you asked me. unfortunately, i do not believe its neccesary. so, in reality, this makes the argument null/void. you can call it a victory, or reasoning of your personal truth. good job!?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 18:54:49 GMT -5
My point is not victory, but that you see the truth. But for the sake of sentimentality, let me examine you claim.
If proof is not necessary, then your epistemology is entirely acceptable. However, in this reality we both share, proof is necesary. You cannot prove, by pointing to your senses, that your epistemology is true because the only way to verify that is to use your senses. Therefore you become the final authority which begs the question and is a lonely fact.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 19:09:11 GMT -5
evidence is essential. however, there is no evidence on this earth sound enough for a person whose presuppositions are polar to the person he is debating. this is what is wrong with your debate. you have to be right, regardless of the cost. you may be wrong, but like so many christians, you are afraid of change. you are afraid of being alone, and god is the solution for this inevitable problem that all humans face.
you would remain a christian even if you discovered that you were being lied to...
...and that is where i will close this discussion.
note: take a look at how you are using your fancy terms in context to the discussion. you have rarely made sense in any of the [number] threads we've participated in. however, when you refrain from using philosophical, scientific and other words beyond your comprehension...you made perfect sense.
i am not calling you stupid. i simply think it makes sense to exclude terminology that has no place in a conversaion other than to make one seem superior than the other. i can hold an intelligent debate with almost any scholar by using the terminology of modern laymen. also, you will relate to people better who may not understand what you are trying to say...so, save your breath and the big words for a spelling bee.
note ii: no, this does not mean that i did not understand your posts. har. har. har. i really do believe you were using them out of context...or they were merely used as space-fillers.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 19:14:36 GMT -5
Okay, I can argue ad hominem to but I choose not to. Insulting my intelligence is not the way to close an argument.
The fact is, your cannot empirically prove empiricism. And you base you worldview upon empiricism, which is self refuting.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 20:47:21 GMT -5
i did not insult you. i simply suggested something. take it or leave it, and since you apologized for something that was not a terrible threat i will do the same. i offer my apologies if you read it as an insult.
i do think its amusing how you classify me into a category without informing me of it. i had no idea i was an empiricist. honestly, i follow no doctrine thoroughly...
i take shards from all schools of thoughts and apply it to my life.
humans are insistent upon categorizing everything. this is our nature, but i swear that christians are worst of all.
ex. you satanist! no, i am an agnostic. duh, that is what i said, satanist!
|
|