Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Huntster]

Sure it would. In fact, I try to only believe things for which I have clear indications.....

Is that belief, or knowledge?

...For example, I refuel my car when the fuel gauge provides me with a clear indication that I'm about to run out, precisely because I believe that further driving will leave me stranded at the side of the road...

Folks like you need a fuel gauge. Sometimes they still run out of gas.

Did you know that lots of heavy equipment don't have fuel gauges? The operator just knows that the equipment won't run without fuel, and knows damned well he'd better fuel up at the beginning of the shift.

But, you're right. Not everybody can do that.

Some folks need a gauge.

They can't be operators.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If He provides "clear indications" of His existence, then it wouldn't be belief, would it?

I have clear evidence of the existance of my father. I believe in him, and he believes in me.

 

[wastepanel]

Logic is a means. It is not a final destination. This is all I'm saying. This is all I have ever said (or, meant to say) with my logic. I don't expect anyone to accept hook, line and sinker what I have to say.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "Logic is a means...not a final destination". Logic is the means to your final destination. Logic precipitates your every movement/thought. If you did not have logic, you would not have your beliefs.

Why did you ask me about Revelations?

 

[Belz...]

I didn't run away.

I refused.

Same diff.

Are you the one making the calls?

No, only 144,000 people are making it up there, according to the bibble. That's a very small number, comparatively.

If He provides "clear indications" of His existence, then it wouldn't be belief, would it?

Of course it would. Do you believe in honesty ? Even if you don't, it still exists.

 

[wastepanel]

I'm not picking on anyone. Only asking him to back up a claim he made. Preferably in plain English. I would even go so far as to say I LIKE arguing with Iacchus, and if I were intent on "picking on him" i would be raking him over the coals FAR harder.

Sorry bout that. Read too much into the statement (same for Belz...)

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is that belief, or knowledge?



Folks like you need a fuel gauge. Sometimes they still run out of gas.

Did you know that lots of heavy equipment don't have fuel gauges? The operator just knows that the equipment won't run without fuel, and knows damned well he'd better fuel up at the beginning of the shift.

But, you're right. Not everybody can do that.

Some folks need a gauge.

They can't be operators.

Can you ever make a post without including a derogatory comment in it?

 

[Huntster]

I have clear evidence of the existance of my father. I believe in him, and he believes in me.

My father is dead, but I had clear evidence of him. I believed in him, and he believed in me.

Some folks only have evidence of a father because of the biological liklihood that they were conceived like everybody else. Maybe they don't even know what to believe.

It wasn't their fault, either. Their father may have been dead, may have left voluntarily, etc.

That's just the way things work out.

 

[wastepanel]

No, only 144,000 people are making it up there, according to the bibble. That's a very small number, comparatively.

Actually, that references how many people will be left on earth during the final battle at the end of the world.

 

[Mercutio]

Don't pick on Iacchus. That was actually a pretty good statement.

I disagree. He was shifting the burden of proof in his counter-example. He is the one making the claim (and a remarkable claim at that--to know what happened "before the big bang", a time before time began!), and he has been asked to provide evidence.

To use his example, it is as if Iacchus is the one telling the husband that his wife is a whore, without evidence, but claiming to know it as a fact. When asked for proof of his "fact", he tries to put the burden of proof on the husband to disprove his assertion, despite the fact that there is no evidence behind the assertion in the first place.

No one here has asserted any knowledge of what happened before the big bang. Indeed, all available evidence suggests that if there was a "before", we cannot possibly, in any way, know about it. The only one asserting knowledge of it here is Iacchus. What is his evidence? I think the closest thing to evidence that he gave us was that he was here, sitting in front of his computer, typing. That is his evidence. Oh, and that he is aware of that.

He has asserted without evidence. In his little wife/whore example, he attempts to shift the burden of proof. He is, once again, quite simply wrong.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't know. I'm not the teacher.

The teacher also refuses to answer questions.

I've learned a few lessons in the past. I could share them with you, but you'd just reject them, so why bother?

I take those lessons included how to be dismissive and insulting to an interogator?

We hear it all the time; if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

A failure to learn will manifest itself as punishment in itself.

Which lasts for what, ever? For eternity? Hardly a mericful sense of proportionality.

Taking the test is the culmination of the lesson. Passing and failing dictate the results.

Change the test, change their motivation to learn, or change their effort to pass?

Hunster, you have more posts about this, but I think you're missing my point. There's no evidence for this god of yours, or for eternal torment or reward. I have diffuclty believing in a god which rewards gullibility.

 

[Huntster]

Same diff.......

Same effect, big difference.

...No, only 144,000 people are making it up there, according to the bibble. That's a very small number, comparatively....

Sure is.

I guess you and I ain't makin' it, huh?

Too bad for us.

 

[Mercutio]

Logic is a means. It is not a final destination. This is all I'm saying. This is all I have ever said (or, meant to say) with my logic. I don't expect anyone to accept hook, line and sinker what I have to say.

Your logic has been consistently circular. There is no reason for anyone, yourself included, to accept what you say.

 

[Huntster]

Can you ever make a post without including a derogatory comment in it?

Yup.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My father is dead, but I had clear evidence of him. I believed in him, and he believed in me.

Some folks only have evidence of a father because of the biological liklihood that they were conceived like everybody else. Maybe they don't even know what to believe.

It wasn't their fault, either. Their father may have been dead, may have left voluntarily, etc.

That's just the way things work out.

Hunster, that's because fathers aren't omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly merciful beings. "God" does not have the excuse that circumstances were out of his control, and that's why he's not around. If you accept the premise that god can do anything, then it follows that if he exists, he choses to do nothing to convince us he exists, and punishes forever those who don't believe in him, in the absence of any evidence.

 

[Mercutio]

Is that belief, or knowledge?

As Iacchus has been told, there is belief because of evidence, belief in the absence of evidence, and belief despite evidence to the contrary. He equates the three.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Hunster, you have more posts about this, but I think you're missing my point. There's no evidence for this god of yours, or for eternal torment or reward. I have diffuclty believing in a god which rewards gullibility.

And punishes, by eternal torture, the lack thereof.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "Logic is a means...not a final destination". Logic is the means to your final destination. Logic precipitates your every movement/thought. If you did not have logic, you would not have your beliefs.

Logic is like a car. You can choose to drive it to Eureka (California) or, to Reno (Nevada). However, we must not confuse Eureka with Reno or, anyplace else.

Why did you ask me about Revelations?

Because I'm wondering how a person can speak of such things without having some sort of direct experience (religious-wise) on the matter. In other words I could hardly believe that this person was just guessing and knew full well of the God he was speaking about.

 

[wastepanel]

I disagree. He was shifting the burden of proof in his counter-example. He is the one making the claim (and a remarkable claim at that--to know what happened "before the big bang", a time before time began!), and he has been asked to provide evidence.

To use his example, it is as if Iacchus is the one telling the husband that his wife is a whore, without evidence, but claiming to know it as a fact. When asked for proof of his "fact", he tries to put the burden of proof on the husband to disprove his assertion, despite the fact that there is no evidence behind the assertion in the first place.

No one here has asserted any knowledge of what happened before the big bang. Indeed, all available evidence suggests that if there was a "before", we cannot possibly, in any way, know about it. The only one asserting knowledge of it here is Iacchus. What is his evidence? I think the closest thing to evidence that he gave us was that he was here, sitting in front of his computer, typing. That is his evidence. Oh, and that he is aware of that.

He has asserted without evidence. In his little wife/whore example, he attempts to shift the burden of proof. He is, once again, quite simply wrong.

I disagree with that. If, in that same example, Iacchus found a letter tossed aside saying Mrs. Whore was in fact a whore, wouldn't it be reasonable to acknowledge this (albiet unexplained and mysterious)?

The burden of proof is on all of us, not just Iacchus. In order to refute his claims, evidence must be gathered. Simply arguing about shifting the burden of proof proves nothing except that Iacchus is not good at arguing.

It comes down to this. There may have been God, there is a God, there wasn't a God...all 3 statements are correct depending on who you speak to.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Because I'm wondering how a person can speak of such things without having some sort of direct experience on the matter. In other words I could hardly believe that this person was just guessing and knew full well of the God he was speaking about.

I doubt very much J.R.R. Tolkein ever vistied The Shire, however he descibes it and its inhabitants quite well in his books. Your point is?

P.S. There is no mistaking Eureka for Reno.

 

[Iacchus]

As Iacchus has been told, there is belief because of evidence, belief in the absence of evidence, and belief despite evidence to the contrary. He equates the three.

My belief is experiential.