Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Huntster]

The teacher also refuses to answer questions....

Did you ask the question?

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

Nope. I learned that here, from y'all.

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?....

I suppose. Fail to learn the lesson, and you'll never know the material, right?

...Hardly a mericful sense of proportionality...

I wouldn't know. Like I said, I'm not the teacher. These ain't my rules. I'm learning the hard way.

And, believe me, it has been the School of Hard Knocks.

...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....

There's evidence. You just don't accept it.

I do.

I have diffuclty believing in a god which rewards gullibility.

Oh, well.

Back to the drawing board with ya'.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There's evidence. You just don't accept it.

I do.

Please provide evidence.

 

[wastepanel]

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.

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.

I'm not following the car example.

I'm not following the Revelations question and reason either.

Sorry, long day I guess.

 

[Huntster]

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......

I wouldn't know. I'm not God.

Maybe He likes the way he set things up, and doesn't feel the need to rearrange it to please you.

...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....

That's appears to be an astute conclusion.

Indeed, that's among the most basic tenets of my own religion, and I believe that completely.

 

[Huntster]

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.

I asked whether it was "knowledge" or "belief".

 

[Mercutio]

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)?

That would be evidence, no? He has been asked to produce some.

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.

No. There is no reason to refute his claims, since there is nothing supporting them in the first place. Also, as mentioned, in the rare instance when Iacchus does make a claim of fact, he is [nearly?] always contradicted by evidence. His claims about consciousness, about evolution, about dreams, about energy, about time/space dimensionality...when he has been able to coherently phrase his notions, they have been quite simply wrong. If you want evidence gathered to refute his claims, it has already been done.

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.

But none of those is the same as "there is no evidence for a god". That is the default position, until somebody comes up with some evidence. "There is no evidence for a god" is not a position claiming there is no god, nor is it claiming that there is one. Iacchus claims to know. Great; how? What is his reason? What is his evidence? There is, quite clearly, the burden of proof on his claim.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm not following the car example.

Oddly enough, I do. He's saying logic is a tool, like a car. You can use it to go somewhere cool, Like Reno ( ) or someplace not quite as cool, like Eureka. It's entirely up to you.

I don't agree with him, logic should take you wherever the facts lead, not where you want to go, but I undersatnd him anyway.

 

[Iacchus]

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?

That the guy who wrote the book of Revelation is either an abject liar or he isn't.

 

[Mercutio]

I asked whether it was "knowledge" or "belief".

It is belief because of evidence. If you wish to call this "knowledge", that works too, but calling it "knowledge" does not mean that it is not also belief. It is simply not a belief that is unfounded, nor is it a belief held in opposition to the evidence.

"Knowledge" is a subcategory of, not a distinct category from, "belief".

 

[Iacchus]

Oddly enough, I do. He's saying logic is a tool, like a car. You can use it to go somewhere cool, Like Reno ( ) or someplace not quite as cool, like Eureka. It's entirely up to you.

I don't agree with him, logic should take you wherever the facts lead, not where you want to go, but I undersatnd him anyway.

Yeah, it all depends on what you're looking for and, when you finally find it, you shout, Eureka!

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
There's evidence. You just don't accept it.

I do.

Please provide evidence.

Oh, here we go! I've got him, now! That idiot! He can't provide any evidence that I can't blast full of doubt. I'll show him!

Young man, I prefer not to get on the merry-go-round. Been there, done that.

Circular rides makes my stomach feel ill.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That the guy who wrote the book of Revelation is either an abject liar or he isn't.

False Dichotomy. For example, it has been argued that the Book of Revelations is largely allegorical. Making the writer of Revelations no more an 'abject lar' than Arthur Miller for wrting 'The Crucible'.

 

[Mercutio]

My belief is experiential.

And those who have looked at your "book" can see that your experience could be interpreted in many ways other than how you have chosen to do so. If it were not for your circular reasoning, you could not logically go from your experience to your conclusions.

 

[drkitten]

Is that belief, or knowledge?

Well, the standard definition of "knowledge" is a "justified true belief." So all knowledge is, by standard definition, a belief -- the distinctino you're trying to draw doesn't work.

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.

Did you know that lots of equipment isn't operated on a shift basis, and instead is fueled up as needed, instead of to a set time schedule? Did you know that fueling up the car every morning is a waste both of time and money?

And this has nothing to do with whether or not having evidence for something keeps you from believing in it.

 

[Mercutio]

Oddly enough, I do. He's saying logic is a tool, like a car. You can use it to go somewhere cool, Like Reno ( ) or someplace not quite as cool, like Eureka. It's entirely up to you.

I don't agree with him, logic should take you wherever the facts lead, not where you want to go, but I undersatnd him anyway.

It makes sense when you use circular logic. It need not go where the facts lead; it goes where you start off assuming it will go.

 

[Iacchus]

It makes sense when you use circular logic. It need not go where the facts lead; it goes where you start off assuming it will go.

Well just don't ask me for directions on how to get to Eureka then, because you may not wind up where you would like to go ... some place other than Eureka that is.

 

[Iacchus]

False Dichotomy. For example, it has been argued that the Book of Revelations is largely allegorical. Making the writer of Revelations no more an 'abject lar' than Arthur Miller for wrting 'The Crucible'.

Again, there is either a mystery to the whole thing, or there isn't. And if there was, this man must have known it and, been in touch with it. I'm suggesting that he was fully aware that God existed for himself.

 

[wastepanel]

That would be evidence, no? He has been asked to produce some.
No. There is no reason to refute his claims, since there is nothing supporting them in the first place. Also, as mentioned, in the rare instance when Iacchus does make a claim of fact, he is [nearly?] always contradicted by evidence. His claims about consciousness, about evolution, about dreams, about energy, about time/space dimensionality...when he has been able to coherently phrase his notions, they have been quite simply wrong. If you want evidence gathered to refute his claims, it has already been done.
But none of those is the same as "there is no evidence for a god". That is the default position, until somebody comes up with some evidence. "There is no evidence for a god" is not a position claiming there is no god, nor is it claiming that there is one. Iacchus claims to know. Great; how? What is his reason? What is his evidence? There is, quite clearly, the burden of proof on his claim.

Good comment.

Let's take the same example, and have Iacchus find the letter, but only have the letter be destroyed upon his him reading it (think Mission: Impossible). What evidence would lead Mr. Whore to believe him? And how Iacchus not know he imagined the whole thing?

I agree with you that Iacchus should not quote his beliefs as facts as they are facts to him alone (due to lack of evidence).

The default position is that there is no evidence of God. But that doesn't mean there isn't undiscovered evidence either. Look at it this way: in Iacchus's search for evidence, he may very well stumble upon it. If science didn't think "maybe we can...", there wouldn't be advances in science. We would simply add new laws and be content.

 

[Huntster]

It is belief because of evidence. If you wish to call this "knowledge", that works too, but calling it "knowledge" does not mean that it is not also belief. It is simply not a belief that is unfounded, nor is it a belief held in opposition to the evidence.

"Knowledge" is a subcategory of, not a distinct category from, "belief".

Huh?

If you're driving down the road, and the fuel gauge shows "1/2", you can consider it "knowledge".

However, the gauge could be stuck! Then your fuel level really wasn't knowledge, then, was it? It was belief based on evidence (which was wrong!).

Oh, well. So much for both belief based on evidence, and knowledge. They both could be wrong. You might run out of gas.

 

[Iacchus]

Good comment.

Let's take the same example, and have Iacchus find the letter, but only have the letter be destroyed upon his him reading it (think Mission: Impossible). What evidence would lead Mr. Whore to believe him? And how Iacchus not know he imagined the whole thing?

I agree with you that Iacchus should not quote his beliefs as facts as they are facts to him alone (due to lack of evidence).

Mercutio has just driven his car off the edge of a cliff as far as I'm concerned.