User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 69

  1. #41
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Usehername View Post

    Yes, biology exists. However, the onus is on you to explain why this precludes any higher being's involvement--the best you can say is that you choose to restrict your epistemological grounds to science, but then appealing to the philosophy of science puts you in the same position as theistic believers--you're still laying your chips down at the foot of a belief system, to the exclusion of other belief system choices.

    Christianity does not preclude the symphonic directives of biology, it includes it--the Bible is full of teachings about that which is living, tangible and physical. OTOH, those who assert that biology is the only logical option for knowing have to make a case for disowning every other major epistemological inquiry. Yours is a tall task.
    re-read my post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    1. A metaphysical truth would require an "a priori synthetic"
    2. For it to be A priori, the justification does not rely upon the experience.
    3. A good approximation is that an a priori must be "necessary and universal".
    4. For it to be synthetic, the predicate concept can't be contained in the subject concept.
    5. If the predicate cant be deduced from subject, you're almost never going to avoid an induction: eg "All bachelors are happy" basically equals "All bachelors are probably happy" because the first statement is only true as an induction.

    Conclusion: To have a true metaphysical statement, you'd have to state something that was an induction, yet necessary and universal. One of the primary elements of an induction is that its NOT something that follows with absolute necessity.

    Thus a "true" metaphysical statement is likely impossible (the only thing that I think stands a chance is stuff regarding "happiness being desirable"...another thread, another time).
    So how does this apply to your post?

    1. A metaphysical statement, an a priori synthetic, is going to only ever be "true for you". You, and only you (the rhetorical you).

    2. Science generally rests on induction. Its not going to be as 100% true as mathematics. However, this does not put science on the level of theists (read: metaphysical belief) because much of science would be a posteriori synthetic. This would mean its an induction after experience. This means its an experience that everyone could have and theoretically test. Thus a posteriori synthetic wont necessarily be restricted to only being "true for you", like an a priori synthetic would be (metaphysical statements).

    3. So yes, science would be on a metaphysical level when ever it makes inductions not based on experience (ie lacks experience, ie lacks evidence). Some religious people complain that when scientists are so sure of themselves, they are basically acting on metaphysical belief. This is not true most of time. When a scientist is so sure of his beliefs, as to attribute deductive certainty to his inductions, he is not being metaphysical, he is merely being illogical.




    Again, I believe that people have the right to believe what ever they need to believe, I just think that scientism should not blindly be applied to all of science.

  2. #42
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    re-read my post:
    I never read it in the first place; I was engaged in a subdiscussion in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post

    So how does this apply to your post?

    ...

    Again, I believe that people have the right to believe what ever they need to believe, I just think that scientism should not blindly be applied to all of science.
    You're sucking in the metaphysical into an episteme revolving around the physical, placing boxes and boundaries around that which by definition does not share the same characteristics as the natural laws. Where's the logic in that, outside of saying, "I choose to have faith in this episteme to the exclusion of other possible epistemes." Where's the substantiation for that belief? Your claims only make sense if one starts with the same premises, and every selection and deflection of all the possible premises revolve around beliefs.

    It applies to my post, because you said right there that you believe. You have to lay your chips down somewhere. You're choosing to worship the post-postmodern, poststructrualist epistemological notions of what constitutes valued ways of knowing. Give us another few hundred years and your worldview will be antiquated, just like every worldview before it. What makes you believe that your epistemological viewpoint won't be laughably antiquated with new information or evolving worldviews later on? You're putting your faith in a system of knowledge, just like anyone else. Faith by definition is unquantifiable--it is outside the realm of measurement. It doesn't matter how much of a faith leap it is, you're still making a faith leap.

    I don't see the relevance of your third point, either. I'm a firm believer in evolution and have a minor in biochemistry; Christianity does not preclude science. You're making presumptions, arguing against a small demographic not representative of the more encompassing theistic religion, effectively creating a strawman.
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  3. #43
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Usehername View Post
    I never read it in the first place; I was engaged in a subdiscussion in this thread.
    i know. i was prodding you


    You're sucking in the metaphysical into an episteme revolving around the physical, placing boxes and boundaries around that which by definition does not share the same characteristics as the natural laws.
    Statements.

    People make statements, including statements about the metaphysical. How do we know if they are true? The system I was referring to (a priori, a posteriori, analytic, synthetic) is tied to Immanuel Kant. He was not "pulling the metaphysical itself" into a box, he did however categorize how a statement about metaphysics would ever be proven true (it would have to be an a priori synthetic). Statements can be categorized based on criteria. There is nothing illogical about categorizing statements.

    Where's the logic in that, outside of saying, "I choose to have faith in this episteme to the exclusion of other possible epistemes." Where's the substantiation for that belief? Your claims only make sense if one starts with the same premises, and every selection and deflection of all the possible premises revolve around beliefs.
    It's true that you could reject the criteria used for categorizing statements. Look at what you're rejecting: a priori = before experience, a posteriori = after experience, analytic = predicate deduced from the subject, synthetic = predicate induced from the subject They may all sound like fancy words and premises that you can easily reject. But if you reject those premises:

    1. If analytic and synthetic aren't exhaustive, then what form of reasoning do you think you're relying on besides induction or deduction?

    2. If a posteriori and a priori aren't exhaustive, then what form of content are you operating on, if it isnt after experience, and its not before experience, then what is it?

    Thus, the system may seem arbitrary, but when analyzed, to reject it puts you squarely in a metaphysical camp. The system itself does not preclude metaphysics. It would be only be someone's lack of ability to come up with a metaphysical statement that would "precludes metaphysics". the system is thus not unfalsifiable, because even Kant himself believed some metaphysical statements fit the system. I hold some statements to pass the test as well. Kant and I dont agree on which statements though. As I said, a priori synthetic statements: will only ever be true, for you.

    You're putting your faith in a system of knowledge, just like anyone else. Faith by definition is unquantifiable--it is outside the realm of measurement. It doesn't matter how much of a faith leap it is, you're still making a faith leap.
    As I said earlier, you can reject the system, but if you do, there are some pretty ridiculous questions to be answered (i spelled out the questions earlier in this post as #1 and #2).

    Secondly, you are putting faith of any kind on an equal level, this is a mistake. You are in essence saying that all induction is an equal level of induction, no matter what. It is true that faith cant be quantified with a number, it can however be categorized. Synthetic built on a priori is not the same as synthetic built on a posteriori. --> Induction of metaphysics is not the same as induction based on experienced reality.

    I don't see the relevance of your third point, either. I'm a firm believer in evolution and have a minor in biochemistry; Christianity does not preclude science. You're making presumptions, arguing against a small demographic not representative of the more encompassing theistic religion, effectively creating a strawman.
    You misunderstood the point of said #3. My entire discussion has included the idea that only metaphysics can exclude other metaphysics. My point in number three was that science occupies a different category than metaphysics and thus it would be wrong to blame the scientists for metaphysical assumptions. (Blame them for bad metaphysics only if they explicitly make metaphysical statements, which would then not even be science).

    I'm sensing some canned responses. Im not your typical agnostic. I dont need to be told that science doesnt preclude metaphysics. That has never been my point in this thread.

  4. #44
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    ^They're not canned responses--your points make sense when we start with the same premises that to know if there is a god we would look for evidence and then decide if there likely is or isn't one.

    On the contrary, faith, by definition, requires one to begin their inquiry with the premise that there is a god.

    You claim this is unreasonable; I claim that it's unreasonable to presume that if the supernatural exists it should obey any of the epistemes that we associate with our more scientific ways of knowing.

    I never asserted that the faith-leaps were equal, I said that the faith leaps are, by definition, leaps of faith, and nothing more about that matters. Yes, this definition includes people who believe unicorns dance around on the moon. The difference is that we could actually go to the moon and find that information out using science's episteme, because that faith system is relegated to the realm of natural law. Religion is not relegated to the realm of natural law, so all of our ways of knowing about it are unfalsifiable. Hence, the key word, faith. Your argument makes sense because you're self-selecting into your definition of reason. Not every reasonable person agrees with your limited definition of reason. There's many philosophers who would back up that position, and who have done so, with extensive writing.

    [Also, sorry if I come off as being grouchy; I am ticked that I'm online when I should be studying when I have a potentially life-determining test to take in a matter of days, but this frustration is directed only toward myself.]
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  5. #45
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Usehername View Post
    On the contrary, faith, by definition, requires one to begin their inquiry with the premise that there is a god.
    Wow, im tempted to just stop here. It says so much about everything!

    You claim this is unreasonable; I claim that it's unreasonable to presume that if the supernatural exists it should obey any of the epistemes that we associate with our more scientific ways of knowing.
    Ah, I think you finally agree with me. I too agree that metaphysics do not conform to our scientific ways of knowing! (metaphysics will never be proven or disproven by a posteriori synthetics). The sad fact is though, that if "metaphysical knowing" is possible, it will have to conform to at least one of our ways of knowing, period. I've mapped out 4 ways in this thread, only one of them applies to metaphysics.

    Not every reasonable person agrees with your limited definition of reason. There's many philosophers who would back up that position, and who have done so, with extensive writing.
    I'm aware of this. Nietzsche is the prime critic of Kant. This is a great segway to one of my craziest discoveries:

    Christians are Nihilists. . I know, you're thinking, "WTF?!". Basically your objection to Kant is that you think his 4 categories are meaningless. You're 100% entitled to think that. You are entitled to reject that we have the capability of categorizing knowledge. That road has historically lead to nihilism, which i reject on principle

    [Also, sorry if I come off as being grouchy; I am ticked that I'm online when I should be studying when I have a potentially life-determining test to take in a matter of days, but this frustration is directed only toward myself.]
    oh you too? I should be studying as well. Well, lets laugh at my latest discovery, and we'll take a break for now. Pick up next week...

  6. #46
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post


    I'm aware of this. Nietzsche is the prime critic of Kant. This is a great segway to one of my craziest discoveries:

    Christians are Nihilists. . I know, you're thinking, "WTF?!". Basically your objection to Kant is that you think his 4 categories are meaningless. You're 100% entitled to think that. You are entitled to reject that we have the capability of categorizing knowledge. That road has historically lead to nihilism, which i reject on principle
    Most Christians are nihilist--if not in theory, then in practice.

    A priori synthetic statements are possible; it's possible to make some headway in metaphysics. I needn't refer to my experience to know there are no square-circles. I needn't exhaustively search the universe in order to confirm that indeed there are no square-circles. In order to make the inference that there are no square-circles takes a commitment to reason, i.e., that reason is ontological. That contradictions are necessarily false is a statement about the nature of thought; to leap from this logical formulation to metaphysical necessity cannot be confirmed by experience. If you don't believe that the laws of reason hold sway in the noumenal realm, then no about of experience will ever convince you that they do: you could search the entire universe for a square-circle, fail to find one, yet still believe that one could exist.

    We can learn about what is by using reason to know what it's not.

  7. #47
    nevermore lane777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Since the New Testament is the Christian's guide to righteous living, every verse in this post is taken from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard
    To be fruitful and multiply
    Christians are no longer called to follow the law. However, there are various laws that I choose to practice. For instance, I avoid certain foods for health reasons. But I'm not following them to save my soul - which is the action of many false Christians. A true Christian will never claim that the law saves.

    Galatians 5:2-6 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

    1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard
    Not to commit sodomy with a male
    Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard
    Not to have intercourse with a beast
    1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

    What does God consider sexual immorality? Looking back at the law (since the law tells us what sin is) bestiality is a sexual sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard
    That the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her (this used to be law in some places, is generally not considered in modern Western societies)
    This is not taught in the New Testament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard
    Not to practice nachesh (doing things based on signs and portents; using charms and incantations)
    Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard
    Not to consult ovoth (ghosts)
    Ghosts do not exist. When we pass away, the soul of a man sleeps in temporary death until Christ's return to earth.

    John 3:13-15 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

    John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

    1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

    Anyways, consulting demons is forbidden:

    1 Corinthians 10:20-21 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
    To die would be an awfully big adventure - Peter Pan

    INFJ ~ 4w5 sp/sx ~ RLOAI ~ Inclusion e/w=1/0 (Melancholy Compulsive) Control: e/w=0/6 (Supine) Affection: e/w=4/0 (Phlegmatic Melancholy)

  8. #48
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    A true christian would never tell his kids that a fat guy with rosy cheeks B&E's the house once a year and leaves boxes full of temporary crappy plastic toys for them to play with for five or six days until they fall apart.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  9. #49
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    A priori synthetic statements are possible; it's possible to make some headway in metaphysics.
    I know, and I agree.

  10. #50
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaybeLogic View Post
    A true christian would never tell his kids that a fat guy with rosy cheeks B&E's the house once a year and leaves boxes full of temporary crappy plastic toys for them to play with for five or six days until they fall apart.
    Does this mean you're a Jehovah's Witness?

Similar Threads

  1. why does prayer work for some people and not for others?
    By prplchknz in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-06-2014, 08:38 PM
  2. why do I keep becoming friends with manipulative people?
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 09:56 AM
  3. INTPs - why do they love fancy-shmancy snooty debates?
    By mrcockburn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 12:37 AM
  4. Why do people keep comparing the US to Europe?
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 06:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO