To say there is no god as a point of knowledge (which appears to be the view being expressed) is to assert positive knowledge of a negative. This is untenable as it is impossible to prove a negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
Printable View
To say there is no god as a point of knowledge (which appears to be the view being expressed) is to assert positive knowledge of a negative. This is untenable as it is impossible to prove a negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
I've always been confused by this statement so perhaps you could clarify. I could certainly put forth a valid argument which concludes in the negation of a proposition. I understand "to prove" to mean "to demonstrate a proposition in a given system". If the system is something like propositional calculus it is certainly possible to prove a negation. If the system if epistemological then I think I agree, but I'll withold objection until your reply is forthcoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Proof is a logical term. In logic there are two basic formats: inductive and deductive. Deductive basically means going from big to little for example: Bachelors are unmarried, Bob is a bachelor therefore Bob is unmarried. A conclusion is drawn from a general premise. Inductive means going from little to big for example: Those are swans, the swans are white therefore all swans are white. Now if one takes a deductive standard say: "there is no God" and then derive some conclusion from it. That is fine, but the statement "there is no God" is a premise of a proof, not the proof itself. A premise is an assertion that may or may not be true, but the premise has no qualification and therefore no particular standing unless it is a tautology like my bachelor example. Typically when discussing the inability to prove a negative one is thinking of inductive logic. Given that induction is based on a particular, it is impossible to draw a necessary universal conclusion from that particular as the conclusion is constrained by the particular. If you consider the swan example: a swan or group of swans are cited and a general conclusion is draw from that citation. That conclusion carries no necessity. There is nothing that denies a black swan may exist and in fact should one find a black swan the prior conclusion is completely refuted. This is the dynamic science operates under: data is gathered and conclusions are drawn from that data. Scientists then try and falsify the claim through counterexamples. If a counterexample can be found then the process begins anew. If no counterexample can be found then one feels a little more confident about the conclusion. Regardless the length of time a conclusion may stand, it is always subject to a possible counterexample and revision. We hold to inductive conclusions out of a sense of prudence rather than necessity. Does that make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
Yes it makes sense. The confusion arose because I thought you were including deductive logic in your statement. I think the proper formulation of "a negative cannot be proved" is "the inductive principle cannot be used to prove non-existence".
As I said above, I reject a coherence criterium. It is much too powerful.Quote:
Whether experience is self-generated or not and whether such properly reflect reality is a separate question. I know you have opted for a correspondence critique, but I don't think that is the proper formulation of the standard mystical appeal. It seems, particularly given the ontic overtones, that a coherence formula is more accurate. Further, should we restrict ourselves to correspondence positions I don't think mystical claims are any more vulnerable to critique than other experience. If one accepts basic empirical appeals as a basis for knowledge claims then mystical experience would fall within those bounds.
And yes, you´re right, mystical claims are not more vulnerable to critique than other experiences. The same uncertainty I claimed for mystical appeals count as well for any other empirical method. And that is why I said the important point of this discussion is the meaning of "reliable". Since experiences can be deceitful, we require a systematic approach that minimizes the chance of deceit. This systemtic approach sees 'reliable' information as such that plausibility is not achieved by emotional appeal, but by the fulfillment of certain criteria, namely objectivity and statistical considerations. Because of that, a mystical appeal can be reliable if - and only if - it is open for scientific investigation. Just like any other empirical method.
I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I don't think mysticism is science. I think it is a mistake to apply a scientific regimen to a decidedly unscientific arena. There is no standard by which one who claims ineffable knowledge can then make it effable which is what science would require. Still, mystical systems are not completely closed. Zen, Sufi, various Christian mendicant orders etc. all espouse a method whereby one can "know" with the charge: now go and do likewise.Quote:
And yes, you´re right, mystical claims are not more vulnerable to critique than other experiences. The same uncertainty I claimed for mystical appeals count as well for any other empirical method. And that is why I said the important point of this discussion is the meaning of "reliable". Since experiences can be deceitful, we require a systematic approach that minimizes the chance of deceit. This systemtic approach sees 'reliable' information as such that plausibility is not achieved by emotional appeal, but by the fulfillment of certain criteria, namely objectivity and statistical considerations. Because of that, a mystical appeal can be reliable if - and only if - it is open for scientific investigation. Just like any other empirical method.
Do you like being free of the moderator's robes?
Deductive models cannot prove a negative either without first assuming a negative premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
You could say:
Gods are good. They protect their created subjects. Nobody protects us and our world is not good. Therefore there is no God.
Wonderful discussion. You probably lost a lot of people when it got down, or would it be up, to the level of Otto's numen. We'd best hope that no other Friesians wander in here or they'll suffer massive myocardial infarctions. Karl Popper would pop a blood vessel, at the very least. ~D
You're right on both counts, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
As for shifting the focus of the discussion, I kind of apologized for that.
As for the non-existence of God, you're right that I can't prove it. I am aware of this.
So when I want to be clever I describe myself as a "whatheist" (works slightly better in Norwegian)
An atheist says "there is no God", which is strictly an untenable position.
I actually say "Whether there's a what, now? Why should I even consider such a ludicrous proposition?"
The answer to which is "I was taught'n'told", "there must be something" or some similarly unconvincing statement.
That God is of such a nature that a world without God is indistinguishable from a world without God is the one fact that makes it possible to believe in God, for if His followers claimed that He made a difference in anyway, they would be asked to prove it.
As for mystical experiences. Pindar mentions that they are "available" under many contradictory belief systems. Does not this give us some clue?
Its the nature of the beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Peru
So your "whattheism" has a pinch of pragmatism.
Is this common for denizens of Yurp?
One doesn't need to prove God's existence. It's like someone challenging someone else to prove santa doesn't exist. It's a stupid argument to begin with, IMO. If there really was a god and wanted us to believe him he should give us more modern proof of his existence. Something we can all grasp and say "God did this".
And we shouldn't jump into conclusions about the creation of the world either. There's no way we can ever accurately potray what hapened over those billions of years.
If you want to believe in God that's fine with me. But it's a leap of faith i'm not willing to take with you.
Or maybe just not everyone get a kick out of word masturbation..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
I disagree. The current impact of religions and their thirst for power require serious research in the subject. The approach should be serious and it should be seen as a road to better understanding as well as reconciliation between everyone. If you can prove a fundamentalist wrong, he would stop being a fundamentalist and peace would walk earth....... :book: ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
That´s the problem of mystical claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think the reasoning I´ve given above applies to all forms of experiences. You don´t need to call it science, but without a systematic method one shouldn´t speak of reliability.Quote:
I don't think mysticism is science. I think it is a mistake to apply a scientific regimen to a decidedly unscientific arena. There is no standard by which one who claims ineffable knowledge can then make it effable which is what science would require. Still, mystical systems are not completely closed. Zen, Sufi, various Christian mendicant orders etc. all espouse a method whereby one can "know" with the charge: now go and do likewise.
That said, I don´t think because of that are mystical systems devoid of wisdom. I think there is wisdom outside reliability.
But with "no contradiction", you have a negative as axiome.Quote:
Deductive models cannot prove a negative either without first assuming a negative premise.
Yes, I do. It´s much better for my teint.Quote:
Do you like being free of the moderator's robes?
If one insists on "knowing" whether or not God exists, the solution is quite simple. Kill yourself and find out. Even then, the answer might not be conclusive. The cause of your disappearance into total oblivion with no afterlife could simply be that your timing was off and it was God's poker night with Saint Peter. Too bad. Not that you'll know; because you'll be dead.
Not the most charitable of responses or particularly compelling for any advocate.Quote:
Posted by Pindar
I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The mystical systems I can think of all have a method of sorts, but may or may not be bound to that method. They also all seem to recognize as vital the comportment of the subject: as in the state of the knower impacts what can be known. Reliability as it is tied to experience would seem to depend on the experience.Quote:
I think the reasoning I´ve given above applies to all forms of experiences. You don´t need to call it science, but without a systematic method one shouldn´t speak of reliability.
That said, I don´t think because of that are mystical systems devoid of wisdom. I think there is wisdom outside reliability.
The beauty of assumptions is they can appear without any justification.Quote:
But with "no contradiction", you have a negative as axiome.
Actually quite a few people claim they have talked and meet with him in present life.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
How to get reliable information about God:
1. Smoke a joint (then think).
2. prostrate yourself face down; or cross your legs and get in the "lotus" possition. (after smoking a joint)
3. begin a mantra ... Aaaaaahmmmaaaaaaaaa, etc - is better to consult a disciple of the Lama to find your mantra to reach enlightenment (god), but Aaaaahmaaaaa may work. (after smoking a joint)
4. If you hear voices in your head - and they are coming from your neighbors dog - you might have a problem. Talk to Mommy before actually carrying that axe down the hall to kill her. It may not be god - might be the other guy (er, other god?)
5. All true Christians know that God lives in their hearts - where else would one look for information about God? (still, smoking a joint won't hurt)
6. If you are really interested, I have his personall cell phone number and am willing to share it for a small fee - say $10,000 (after all what is it worth to have a direct line to God?). Rev. Robertson gave it to me - honest.
7. Die, and test your faith. A good place to do this without having to commit the sin of suicide is Iraq - run out and join today. Do not pass goal - just go! [smoke a joint before going]
8. Say something against the new religious right - they'll haunt you 'til you believe in their information on god - and if you really learn to believe as they do, will introduce you to him. You maybe a bit surprised as how much he looks like Rev. Robertson - but, what did you expect? A perfect being? That allows the innocent to die (or doesn't pray for then too).
9. Believe as you will. Oh, wait - that's not right. oh, I know - it's believe as the church (regardless of domination) allows and when you die, you will see the face of god - which will blind you and you will live all eternity in darkness (as you have your life).
10. There is no ten. As there is no ONE. For a person to ask such an ambigious, and yet, biased question is to challenge the existance of a supremebeing. For this, you are going directly to hell. I spoke with God on your behalf, and he is still PO'ed. Bringing up a challenge to his being in any manner is considered a breach of one of the commandments (his words, not mine) - he's really upset about this and i doubt I can talk him out of it. Again, if maybe you give me $10,000 - I might be able to persuade her thatyou were just screwing around (I don't mean really screwing .. as we both know you are totally incapable of).
Yep. God is great, God is all. Sound familiar, yet? ~D
Not being able to meet a standard isn´t an argument against that standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Reliablity is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. Nor is comportment.Quote:
The mystical systems I can think of all have a method of sorts, but may or may not be bound to that method. They also all seem to recognize as vital the comportment of the subject: as in the state of the knower impacts what can be known. Reliability as it is tied to experience would seem to depend on the experience.
But not without cause ~;)Quote:
The beauty of assumptions is they can appear without any justification.
False or contrived standards have no force.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Experience would say otherwise: the sun rose in the East again today.Quote:
Reliablity is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability.
Including this post no doubt.Quote:
But not without cause ~;)
There's too much and too little of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The same goes for principles.
At least that's true for the corner of Yurp called Noway.
It's being highlighted because we'll have a parliamentary election in less than 2 weeks.
That´s trivial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That´s not a counter-example. The observation that the sun rises always in the east is intersubjective and statistically testable. It is reliable by scientific standards.Quote:
Experience would say otherwise: the sun rose in the East again today.
If discussion is concerned with a system that appears to follow a coherence model and your only rejoinder is based on a correspondence schema: that is a false standard and not very compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.Quote:
That´s not a counter-example. The observation that the sun rises always in the east is intersubjective and statistically testable. It is reliable by scientific standards.
That depends whether discussion is there for discussions sake or whether it has a use. You can demand that the obviously false assumptions of a system are not doubted, but then the whole discussion is pointless. You cannot simply "follow a coherence model", it´s not a matter of choice. The Coherence Theory of Truth is nonsense and all truth claims made under it pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That´s an absurd claim as it denies the induction problem. If that were so, we would not need science and we always could trust our senses. It is a fact that some of our experiences are deceiving, that´s undeniable. We and also Crusoe can trust the sunrise because it has such a high statistical significance. An experience alone is not enough for reliability. If you claim otherwise you have a very strange definition of reliability.Quote:
The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.
False assumptions?, Nonsense? Pointless? Your hyperbole aside, given that coherence models have had standing with a number of thinkers of note and have even marked entire schools of thought i.e. German Idealism. Your chevalier dismissal is a little too provincial. This attitude should be checked all the more when the subject matter is metaphysical by definition. A coherence model where an Absolute is part of the paradigm does not seem so outlandish.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Now I don't know if a coherence model is the best way to understand mystical thought. There seem indications that move in that direction. Regardless, I am happy to entertain any and all notions to better understand it along rational lines. You should do the same.
Reliability and necessity are not the same thing. When someone says X is reliable it means that it is generally the case that the conditions will apply. This does not preclude error nor is it meant to. But, if experience demonstrates some standard ("reliability" seems to suggest a history and thereby multiple exposure) it is not "absurd" to rely on that condition to be the case. If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.Quote:
That´s an absurd claim as it denies the induction problem. If that were so, we would not need science and we always could trust our senses. It is a fact that some of our experiences are deceiving, that´s undeniable. We and also Crusoe can trust the sunrise because it has such a high statistical significance. An experience alone is not enough for reliability. If you claim otherwise you have a very strange definition of reliability.
But the sun doesn't rise ...... Everyone knows that.... :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Sounds very much as religion to me. The preacher has a belief that the ice cream is cold and he preach this to all his friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
If the idea is someone reporting his experience then yes. The same would apply if someone was telling you about their car or a movie they saw. The focus is the experience, not the evangelism or report per say which may very well fall short in the telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
The focus of mystical experience is the experience. This is not transferable.