Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 135

Thread: What does it matter . . . ?

  1. #111
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,395
    Amen (Given)
    845
    Amen (Received)
    2478
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No it doesn't "fit within the confines of scientific postulations" of verification; therefore it cannot be shown to be true. Hence, while it may well be a valid argument it will not be a sound argument.
    It seems a perfectly valid argument. Its not a scientific argument, but that does not invalidate it, nor does it render it unsound. What problems do you have with using this argument?

  2. #112
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,063
    Amen (Given)
    16955
    Amen (Received)
    3348
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Is english your first language? I have a hard time believing you're deliberately being this obfuscating.

    Are you seriously asking Tassman about what he knows to be true, but doesn't believe to be true? That would be an oxymoron to ask someone! Or are you asking him about what he knows, in contrast to what he merely 'believes' to be true, where 'believes' mere denotes a lesser degree of certainty, or one not based on strong empirical or deductive foundation?

    The second sentence seems broken, I cannot make sense of it. Did you mean to say "It is not possible to know something, unless its believed?"
    I think* he's trying to get people** to understand that belief is not necessarily a bad thing, and is in fact necessary for one to have knowledge. If I'm right, then most people on TWeb aren't going to have any problem with what he's actually trying to say.

    *I know many people who have a hard time communicating what they intend. For example, I often have to "translate" what my mom is intending to say, as opposed to what she actually said, to my dad.
    **There are certain people who seem to think that belief is "a four letter word".

  3. #113
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,949
    Amen (Given)
    2203
    Amen (Received)
    1506
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    It seems a perfectly valid argument. Its not a scientific argument, but that does not invalidate it, nor does it render it unsound. What problems do you have with using this argument?
    An argument is "valid" if its argument form is valid. An argument is "sound" if and only if it is valid AND all its premises are true. Establishing the "truth" of a premise is a problem in metaphysics. Axioms, which are often the basis of a metaphysical argument, are regarded as a self-evident truths that require no proof, but they cannot be shown to be true. Neither can faith-based beliefs.
    Last edited by Tassman; 02-06-2018 at 04:36 AM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  4. #114
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    192
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Reliable’: “that may be relied on or trusted; dependable in achievement". There is no “reliable” methodology for a metaphysical argument to arrive at the true premise necessary for a true conclusion...only assumptions and axioms.
    Cool. How doesn't this apply to metaphysics?
    Explain how Gettier's refutation of knowledge as justified, true belief doesn't involve true premises leading of necessity to a true conclusion? How is your definition of reliability not an assumption or an axiom?

    To show: “to cause or allow to be seen; exhibit; display” – Oxford Dictionary.
    Cool. How can't metaphysical arguments reveal truth such that the truth causes or allowed to be seen a truth, or exhibits or displays a truth?


    No doubt! How do you “know” they are true reasons?
    The question presupposes epistemological internalism, which I wouldn't expect you to know about, since you're not a philosopher, which means you're the quickest to be subject to a philosophical gaffe.


    Scientific knowledge: "1. knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organised by general principles".
    Grossly naive and simplistic. So broad that it applies to metaphysics, and even the humanities in general. Next?

    Because you cannot establish a verifiable true premise.
    Oh, that's right. You're the one that blithely assumes hard scientism, a demonstrably stupid doctrine.


    Empirical science is verifiable, metaphysical questions such as this are not...for reasons given above.
    Your philosophical reasons for such scientism are laughable.

    The term historical-critical method is shorthand for a whole collection of methodologies and strategies for arriving at historical accuracy. Miracles are excluded because they cannot be verified. Hence the only scholars positing Jesus’ miracles tend to be apologists.
    And the only idiots that say foolish things like this tend to be atheist fundamentalists. I can give you a litany of scholars that don't adopt such an idiotic methodology as their only methodology.

    Can't be verified??? I mean, how scientistic can you get?

    How does being an apologist discount the scholarship? You're an apologist for your point of view. Is everything you say, therefore, suspect?

    Papias is one of the key parts of Bauckham’s argument and supposedly met with 'eyewitnesses', but ALL his accounts are second or third-hand reports.
    Cool. What's wrong with second or third-hand reports? Other than the uncritical, historical-method spectacles cemented onto your oblivious face?


    Papias does not provide firsthand evidence of eyewitness reportage
    Why does this matter?


    Paul seems totally unaware of the Jesus stories and teachings that ended up in the gospels...so much for the oral tradition that was supposed to have been floating around in the pre-gospels period.
    Oh, geez. The 'ole Gospels vs. Paul argument. Prove this, please.
    Last edited by mattbballman31; 02-15-2018 at 11:01 PM.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

  5. Amen Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  6. #115
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,949
    Amen (Given)
    2203
    Amen (Received)
    1506
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Cool. How doesn't this apply to metaphysics?
    Explain how Gettier's refutation of knowledge as justified, true belief doesn't involve true premises leading of necessity to a true conclusion? How is your definition of reliability not an assumption or an axiom?
    A scientific argument based upon an empirically verified scientific premise is demonstrably factual; a metaphysical premise based upon supposedly “self-evident” axioms is not. Therefore it cannot be shown to arrive at a true conclusion. It may, but it cannot be shown that it does.

    Cool. How can't metaphysical arguments reveal truth such that the truth causes or allowed to be seen a truth, or exhibits or displays a truth?
    See above.

    The question presupposes epistemological internalism, which I wouldn't expect you to know about, since you're not a philosopher, which means you're the quickest to be subject to a philosophical gaffe.
    The argument that justification is solely determined by factors internal to a person is nonsense. Justification depends on additional factors that are external to a person otherwise it is pure subjectivism...or possibly delusion.

    Grossly naive and simplistic. So broad that it applies to metaphysics, and even the humanities in general. Next?
    No. Metaphysics, whilst valuable in that it can provide the glue to hold the scientific structure together (such as ensure its self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference), cannot arrive at new facts about nature. Only science has the methodology to do that.

    Oh, that's right. You're the one that blithely assumes hard scientism, a demonstrably stupid doctrine.
    "Sticks and stones....."

    Your philosophical reasons for such scientism are laughable.
    Philosophy can be useful, as I said. See above.

    And the only idiots that say foolish things like this tend to be atheist fundamentalists. I can give you a litany of scholars that don't adopt such an idiotic methodology as their only methodology.
    I'm sure you can find many scholars that support your religious presuppositions.

    Can't be verified??? I mean, how scientistic can you get?

    How does being an apologist discount the scholarship? You're an apologist for your point of view. Is everything you say, therefore, suspect?
    Back to your subjective/delusional “epistemological internalism” I see. I prefer substantiation for what I believe; you're free to believe any subjective nonsense you chose.

    Cool. What's wrong with second or third-hand reports? Other than the uncritical, historical-method spectacles cemented onto your oblivious face?
    “Second or third-hand reports” amount to anecdotal evidence, which is insufficient information upon which to accept the alleged miraculous events of the Jesus story.

    Why does this matter?
    For the reason given directly above; even first-hand claims would be suspect given the improbable nature of the claims.

    Oh, geez. The 'ole Gospels vs. Paul argument. Prove this, please.
    It is reasonable to assume that Paul seems totally unaware of the Jesus stories and teachings that ended up in the gospels...because he doesn’t mention them. He may have known of them, but we don’t know that he did.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  8. #116
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,079
    Amen (Given)
    809
    Amen (Received)
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The problem arises as to 'What is valid faith?' There are a multitude of variable contradictory fallible human claims as to 'What is valid faith?' What objective criteria could be used to make this determination?
    Faith in objective criteria.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  9. #117
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,079
    Amen (Given)
    809
    Amen (Received)
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Is english your first language? I have a hard time believing you're deliberately being this obfuscating.

    Are you seriously asking Tassman about what he knows to be true, but doesn't believe to be true? That would be an oxymoron to ask someone! Or are you asking him about what he knows, in contrast to what he merely 'believes' to be true, where 'believes' mere denotes a lesser degree of certainty, or one not based on strong empirical or deductive foundation?

    The second sentence seems broken, I cannot make sense of it. Did you mean to say "It is not possible to know something, unless its believed?"
    Point of argument, nothing can be one's knowledge unless said knowledge is believed. Again, it is understood, that belief is not the source of knowledge. It is the basis of something true being one's knowledge. Belief is not the cause of truth. Truth is to be the cause of belief.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  10. #118
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,803
    Amen (Given)
    1250
    Amen (Received)
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Point of argument, nothing can be one's knowledge unless said knowledge is believed. Again, it is understood, that belief is not the source of knowledge. It is the basis of something true being one's knowledge. Belief is not the cause of truth. Truth is to be the cause of belief.
    The bold brings out more questions than it resolves. The big question is; How do you determine your criteria of 'Truth' so that you will be willing to believe?
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. #119
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,949
    Amen (Given)
    2203
    Amen (Received)
    1506
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Point of argument, nothing can be one's knowledge unless said knowledge is believed. Again, it is understood, that belief is not the source of knowledge. It is the basis of something true being one's knowledge. Belief is not the cause of truth. Truth is to be the cause of belief.
    The trick is in determining what is true.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  12. #120
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,079
    Amen (Given)
    809
    Amen (Received)
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The bold brings out more questions than it resolves. The big question is; How do you determine your criteria of 'Truth' so that you will be willing to believe?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The trick is in determining what is true.
    Yes, it comes down to how do we know what we know. And what we think we know happens to be what we choose to believe is true or not true as the case may be.

    The method called the scientific method has to be believed as a method. Can that method be used to test itself?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •