"God's total quality management questionnaire"

[Max560]

Max560, please don't apologize--check the opening post; this argument is a derailment from the thread, so there is no reason to think your question is any less valid than their conversation. Anyway, I really just wanted to ask you something based on your avatar. Did you, a decade ago, post on the quartz/prism bulletin boards? Just curious. I knew a fellow (went by "coot" to his friends) whose username is on your avatar.

Derailment noted. I printed off the the TQMQ for my wife. She loved it, as she was in QM in her old job. She is currently on Mat leave with our new baby daughter.

I haven't posted on quartz/prism. Wasn't me. My avitar is a slightly modified version of wraith's avitar. His said "Fatum".

Strangely, he changed his avitar shortly thereafter.

 

[Mercutio]

Derailment noted. I printed off the the TQMQ for my wife. She loved it, as she was in QM in her old job. She is currently on Mat leave with our new baby daughter.

Congratulations! Give them both a kiss on the forehead for me...

I am glad she enjoyed it.

It was a long shot, of course, that you would have been the guy I knew. Nice story, though.

 

[Max560]

Me:

Could someone please tell me when and how it was established that "believing something intrinsically" became the gold standard for proving something?

Iacchus:

How else would we know then, if it required that we take someone else's word for it? Wouldn't this be akin to "the blind the leading the blind?"

This doesn't answer my question at all, does it?

What I am asking for is the proof that an arguement in the form:

Statement X

I believe Statement X Intrinsically.

Therefore Statement X is true.

Is always valid.

 

[Iacchus]

Much better to have the blind stumbling about individually, I am certain.

I see now why you refuse to look at any experimental literature, Iacchus--it is important for you to think of scientists as just as blind as you are. It would be terrible indeed if they actually knew more than you did, wouldn't it? Best if you don't find out...

Hey, there's nothing that says we can't use our minds to evalutate what others tell us, but ultimately it's up to us to "choose" what we know. I can't do that for you. Neither can you do it for anyone else.

 

[Iacchus]

I believe Statement X Intrinsically.

Certainly to believe anything without any means to evalutate it would be foolish.

 

[Mercutio]

Certainly to believe anything without any means to evalutate it would be foolish.

So why do you?



I mean, given the empirical evidence that invalidates your introspective touchstone, that is...Why is it you avoid empirical validation?

Hey, there's nothing that says we can't use our minds to evalutate what others tell us, but ultimately it's up to us to "choose" what we know. I can't do that for you. Neither can you do it for anyone else.

See, that's just the thing--yes, there is quite a lot to say we can't use our minds to evaluate...we know a great deal about how biased individual perception is. The self-correcting process of the scientific method, practiced within a community, acts to guard against our individual biases. So, quite explicitly, yes, there is very good reason not to use individual perception as your gold standard.

 

[Max560]

Statement X

I believe Statement X Intrinsically.

Therefore Statement X is true.

Iacchus, please answer yes or no:

Is the above arguement always true?

 

[Iacchus]

Now please answer

Who is right, you who intrinsically knows there is a God or the people who intrinsically know there is not?

and why please.

Then obviously someone must be mistaken ... or, it's quite possible they may be correct within context of what they do understand. For example, there are a great many things about materialism that can be believed instrinsically, so much so that it's as plain as the nose on your face. And yet overall, materialism as a system may not be what it seems, especially when viewed as a subset of an even greater system.

 

[Pahansiri]

Then obviously someone must be mistaken ... or, it's quite possible they may be correct within context of what they do understand. For example, there are a great many things about materialism that can be believed instrinsically, so much so that it's as plain as the nose on your face. And yet overall, materialism as a system is not what it seems, especially when viewed as a subset of an even greater materialism as a system is not what it seems, especially when viewed as a subset of an even greater system. .

Or it is quite possible you are only right of what within context of what you do understand.

You make a statment of belief here

materialism as a system is not what it seems, especially when viewed as a subset of an even greater system.

But offer no logical conclusion, facts etc.
Please explain why yours is an "even greater" system?

 

[Iacchus]

So why do you?

I mean, given the empirical evidence that invalidates your introspective touchstone, that is...Why is it you avoid empirical validation?

Yet once you can see that 1 +1 = 2, it no longer requires empirical evidence to validate it. This is why it's called an axiom and, why it can be accepted intrinsically.

See, that's just the thing--yes, there is quite a lot to say we can't use our minds to evaluate...we know a great deal about how biased individual perception is. The self-correcting process of the scientific method, practiced within a community, acts to guard against our individual biases. So, quite explicitly, yes, there is very good reason not to use individual perception as your gold standard.

So, why do you waste your time speaking to me, since everything that "you" think, say and do is obviously biased? The Scientific means by which to detect "physical evidence" is not what's in dispute here by the way.

 

[Iacchus]

Statement X

I believe Statement X Intrinsically.

Therefore Statement X is true.

Iacchus, please answer yes or no:

Is the above arguement always true?

No, it's entirely possible that someone could be mistaken. However, do you believe there's something intrinsically wrong about 1 + 1 = 2?

 

[Pahansiri]

No, it's entirely possible that someone could be mistaken. However, do you believe there's something intrinsically wrong about 1 + 1 = 2?

It is factually correct not basically not correct. It is testable, provable, factual.

The God idea is a belief, not testable, provable, or as of yet factual.

 

[Iacchus]

Or it is quite possible you are only right of what within context of what you do understand.

You make a statment of belief here

No, what I'm doing here is making a statement which is subject to what you may or may not believe. So let's get that straight. It really comes down to a matter of what you believe.

But offer no logical conclusion, facts etc.
Please explain why yours is an "even greater" system?

Does the finite rise from that which is infinite? Or, vice versa?

 

[Mercutio]

Does the finite rise from that which inifite? Or, vice versa?

Seriously, you think this is an actual answer to the question?

Please explain why yours is an "even greater" system?

Is your system infinite? How is it that you, a mortal, can know this? How is it that you, a human with the same biased perceptual system as the rest of us, can make such a claim?

Or do you deny that your perceptions are subject to the same error as other humans' perceptions are?

 

[Iacchus]

The God idea is a belief, not testable, provable, or as of yet factual.

If God exists, it is a fact ... provable or otherwise.

 

[Iacchus]

Seriously, you think this is an actual answer to the question?
Is your system infinite? How is it that you, a mortal, can know this? How is it that you, a human with the same biased perceptual system as the rest of us, can make such a claim?

Or do you deny that your perceptions are subject to the same error as other humans' perceptions are?

How is it that only the mind is capable of conceptualizing what infinity is and, that no other aspect of our "physical self" is?

 

[Max560]

I asked if the following form of arguement was always true:

Statement X

I believe Statement X Intrinsically.

Therefore Statement X is true.

Iacchus's answer:

No, it's entirely possible that someone could be mistaken.

Just to spell things out, substituting "God Exists" for Statement X:

God Exists.

(Iacchus) believe(s) that God exists.

Therefore God exists.

Finally, using your own quote to refute this position:

"... it's entirely possible that someone could be mistaken". Someone, in this case being you.

However, do you believe there's something intrinsically wrong about 1 + 1 = 2?

False analogy. The concept of adding is not similar to the concept of a supreme being. Therefore no further discussion is required.

 

[Iacchus]

Finally, using your own quote to refute this position:

"... it's entirely possible that someone could be mistaken". Someone, in this case being you.

Yes, I understand that this wholly a matter of what you believe. So, would you go so far as to say you believe that intrinsically? Yet obviously we can't have two folks believing in something intrinsically at opposite ends of the spectrum in what is clearly a yes or no propostion ... or, can we? Now, do you have anyway of backing up what you say or, is it clearly a matter of what you believe?

 

[Pahansiri]

No, what I'm doing here is making a statement which is subject to what you may or may not believe. So let's get that straight. It really comes down to a matter of what you believe.

Does the finite rise from that which is infinite? Or, vice versa?

Greetings Iacchus

I am sure you forgot to answer this.

Or it is quite possible you are only right of what within context of what you do understand.

No, what I'm doing here is making a statement which is subject to what you may or may not believe. So let's get that straight. It really comes down to a matter of what you believe.

Bingo, what you believe, you believe ( God) you do not know[//b] it to be fact.

You forgot to answer this

Please explain why yours is an "even greater" system?

Does the finite rise from that which is infinite? Or, vice versa?

They are one in the same no need to separate.

 

[Pahansiri]

If God exists, it is a fact ... provable or otherwise.

If God exists, it is a fact ... provable or otherwise.

If the 100’ invisible pink bunny, Santa, Big Foot etc.

What makes your belief more valid then these others or any other such belief?

I have asked you several times and will do so again hoping for an honest response.

You say believing in God will “save us”

You have an illness, a man walks up to you and offers you a small glass vial containing a liquid. He tells you he is a DR and he has this liquid that will “save “ you.

The liquid has no science behind it, never been seen to work on anyone do you just blindly take it or do you question him, ask for test results research etc?