1) I am attacking "ration" insofar as I find it to be defined excessively narrowly, because there are types of knowledge upon which my arguments depend which are accessible through rationality but not science. I fail to see the irrationality of this strategy.
I define "ration" as the faculty by which we arrive at real information about the real universe we inhabit. This definition necessitates the following two criteria:
1.) the premises must be factual -- i.e. verifiable fact
2.) the conclusions arrived at must be arrived at via logic
A theory with false premises will not beget real information about the real universe we inhabit. A theory with conclusions drawn on the basis of anything other than logic will not beget real information about the real universe we inhabit.
You may define ration as something other than a faculty for arriving at real information about the real universe we inhabit, altering your criteria accordingly. However, if you do not define ration as such, then we are talking about different faculties.
Again, I encourage you to study your positions of falsifiability and repeatability. While they are effective for the scientific method, I believe that you will find that it has fallen out of favor with philosophers and scientists alike as the sole basis for knowledge. Consider reading
this wikipedia article.
Observing phenomenon and forming theories on the basis of observed phenomenon until the theory fails to adequately explain the observed phenomenon is still the way science is conducted.
It is true that there are a few who question the scientific method, such as the notorious "Vienna Circle" cited in the Wikipedia article, but it is a baseless exaggeration to say that falsifiability has "fallen out of favor".
To be pointed, every "argument" I've seen from these dissenters has boiled down to, "Yeah, well,
I don't think that's what science is, and I'm a philosopher!" If you are familiar with an argument against falsifiability that doesn't amount to this, I will certainly give it a perusal.
Meanwhile, on the basis of falsifiability and repeatability, science continues to move along providing real information about the real universe we inhabit.
Also consider the fact that under falsifiability, the statement "there is at least one electron" is totally meaningless.
Please elaborate.
2) I do not question the veracity of perception itself. I can only assume that you came to this conclusion through a misreading of my posts. I believe completely in the veracity of perception. I do not believe that the veracity of perception can be adequately defended using scientific means, because to do so tends to be rather circular. Consider this: if the veracity of perception is to be held true, then it must be justified on some grounds that do not assume the veracity of perception. Do you hold that these grounds are capable only of demonstrating the veracity of perception, and insufficient to demonstrate anything else?
You have propounded several variations of the "what if we're really, like,
brains in a jar, man?" argument, which is indeed questioning the veracity of perception.
Furthermore, the veracity of perception is
exceptionally simple to verify on the basis of observed phenomenon:
A species whose sense organs imparted false information about the universe it inhabits would not have made it far.
3) I believe that you have come to these conclusions, quite rationally, I might add, because you have a definition of "ration" that a priori makes claims regarding the existence of God meaningless. It is impossible to provide evidence for a meaningless proposition, so the theist arguing with you is forced to either argue negatively (since you have denied him the opportunity to work positively) or attack your framework of understanding so that he may argue positively.
I will certainly concur that people who can provide literally zero hard evidence in support of their theories will find it difficult to enter into a productive debate with myself and people like me.
4) I might also note that you are providing no positive evidence, nor demonstrating the falsity of anything, nor providing evidence for your falsifiability and repeatability criteria. Consequently, I should probably stop arguing with you, since we are making claims about each other's style of argument, rather than having any productive dialogue whatsoever.
I have claimed, quite simply, that those who believe in God are unable to provide any evidence in support of this belief. So far, in 40-plus pages of exchange, no one has demonstrated this assertion to be false.
You are the one claiming the existence of something, not I. The burden of proof, good sir.
5) You are aware that ad hominem is a fallacy, no? And thanks, about the verbosity.
I've made no ad hominem attacks. Your verbosity is a readily observable fact. If I'd said, "Silverchris is clearly a pantywaist and, accordingly, should not be taken seriously", that would have been an ad hominem attack. (Mind you, I don't know you well enough to make any such claims and don't intend to indicate that I consider you a pantywaist. I simply used this statement for illustrative purposes.)
On a somewhat related note, I think members of these forums should read up on what constitutes an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy before littering the terms about like so much wedding confetti.