Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Knowledge of god?!?!

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:37:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is has been pulled from this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

At 6/27/2016 4:41:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Skept, you commit the fallacy of loaded question.......
Of course I'd prefer to refer to it as loaded paragraph but whatever....
As follows. The set containing all theologians doesn't only refer to that which is believed it also refers to that which is known. You dismiss this arrogantly because you assume that 7 billion people must be dismissed as being capable of individual knowledge, thus meaning you're also committing the fallacy of omniscience....I.e.,you must be all knowing to assert that all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know. This is called an absolute claim. Therefore my response was adequate for the question. You cannot prove what people actually believe and you cannot claim or infer through structured question to possess absolute knowledge of whether or not something can be known. So keep repeating that magic word belief all you want. I'm sure it gives you solice to "know" there are only beliefs. :There are not.
You know i'll even argue chocolate is actually burnt vanilla right? LoL

Skip, no where in the thread did I make any comment vaguely representing "all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know". So, the fallacy of omniscience you attach to this strawman also falls.

That being said, I was fascinated by your implicit claim to knowledge. Would you care to explain what you know about god(s) and how you acquired this knowledge?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:40:04 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
By definition, a conjecture is a supposition with insufficient information to be independently accepted as true.

One can act on a conjecture, have conviction about it, even decide it's fundamental to one's own evaluation of truth, but that still doesn't make it knowledge.

It's dishonest to claim it does, and lazy to claim that it should.

The statement "X might be knowledge" is itself a conjecture. So how does it differ in meaning from the statement "X is only a conjecture"?

Skips' counter-claim is unfounded. When a member conjectures but cannot independently prove knowledge, you don't need omniscience to conclude that the member's claim is only a conjecture.

Just a dictionary. :p
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:03:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:40:04 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
By definition, a conjecture is a supposition with insufficient information to be independently accepted as true.

One can act on a conjecture, have conviction about it, even decide it's fundamental to one's own evaluation of truth, but that still doesn't make it knowledge.

It's dishonest to claim it does, and lazy to claim that it should.

The statement "X might be knowledge" is itself a conjecture. So how does it differ in meaning from the statement "X is only a conjecture"?

Skips' counter-claim is unfounded. When a member conjectures but cannot independently prove knowledge, you don't need omniscience to conclude that the member's claim is only a conjecture.

Just a dictionary. :p

I'm with you on that, Ruv, but I assume Skip (I have to assume since Skip has chosen not to respond) was interpreting something I wrote as "all belief is conjecture". If I had made this type of absolute statement then he would have something to legitimately point to.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:21:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 12:03:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:40:04 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Skips' counter-claim is unfounded. When a member conjectures but cannot independently prove knowledge, you don't need omniscience to conclude that the member's claim is only a conjecture.

Just a dictionary. :p

I assume Skip (I have to assume since Skip has chosen not to respond) was interpreting something I wrote as "all belief is conjecture".
Actually I think he's saying you have to be omniscient to know that no religious doctrine is knowledge.

But you don't. All you have to do is invite anyone of faith to produce a long sequence of specific, significant, independently testable and accurate predictions that you can't make from observation alone. When they can demonstrate the ability to predict correctly as often as you want, they've just demonstrated a method of acquiring knowledge you don't have.

And when they can't, or evade the challenge, or blame their failings on you, or ascribe them to secret plans only they are privy to, that's evidence too, and you don't need omniscience to draw reasonable conclusions from it. :D
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:26:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 12:21:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 12:03:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:40:04 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Skips' counter-claim is unfounded. When a member conjectures but cannot independently prove knowledge, you don't need omniscience to conclude that the member's claim is only a conjecture.

Just a dictionary. :p

I assume Skip (I have to assume since Skip has chosen not to respond) was interpreting something I wrote as "all belief is conjecture".
Actually I think he's saying you have to be omniscient to know that no religious doctrine is knowledge.

But you don't. All you have to do is invite anyone of faith to produce a long sequence of specific, significant, independently testable and accurate predictions that you can't make from observation alone. When they can demonstrate the ability to predict correctly as often as you want, they've just demonstrated a method of acquiring knowledge you don't have.

And when they can't, or evade the challenge, or blame their failings on you, or ascribe them to secret plans only they are privy to, that's evidence too, and you don't need omniscience to draw reasonable conclusions from it. :D

Very true, Ruv. Thanks for clarifying.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:51:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:37:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This is has been pulled from this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

At 6/27/2016 4:41:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Skept, you commit the fallacy of loaded question.......
Of course I'd prefer to refer to it as loaded paragraph but whatever....
As follows. The set containing all theologians doesn't only refer to that which is believed it also refers to that which is known. You dismiss this arrogantly because you assume that 7 billion people must be dismissed as being capable of individual knowledge, thus meaning you're also committing the fallacy of omniscience....I.e.,you must be all knowing to assert that all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know. This is called an absolute claim. Therefore my response was adequate for the question. You cannot prove what people actually believe and you cannot claim or infer through structured question to possess absolute knowledge of whether or not something can be known. So keep repeating that magic word belief all you want. I'm sure it gives you solice to "know" there are only beliefs. :There are not.
You know i'll even argue chocolate is actually burnt vanilla right? LoL

Skip, no where in the thread did I make any comment vaguely representing "all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know". So, the fallacy of omniscience you attach to this strawman also falls.

That being said, I was fascinated by your implicit claim to knowledge. Would you care to explain what you know about god(s) and how you acquired this knowledge?

Knowledge implies belief* and, as such, the set of all theologians who possess knowledge is a subset of the set of all theologians who possess belief. The contention is unfounded.

*If one knows that proposition X is true, then it follows that one also believes that X is true. It's incoherent for one to know that X is true and to not also believe X is true. Belief, in the case of knowledge, is redundant, though.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 9:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:37:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This is has been pulled from this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

At 6/27/2016 4:41:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Skept, you commit the fallacy of loaded question.......
Of course I'd prefer to refer to it as loaded paragraph but whatever....
As follows. The set containing all theologians doesn't only refer to that which is believed it also refers to that which is known. You dismiss this arrogantly because you assume that 7 billion people must be dismissed as being capable of individual knowledge, thus meaning you're also committing the fallacy of omniscience....I.e.,you must be all knowing to assert that all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know. This is called an absolute claim. Therefore my response was adequate for the question. You cannot prove what people actually believe and you cannot claim or infer through structured question to possess absolute knowledge of whether or not something can be known. So keep repeating that magic word belief all you want. I'm sure it gives you solice to "know" there are only beliefs. :There are not.
You know i'll even argue chocolate is actually burnt vanilla right? LoL

Skip, no where in the thread did I make any comment vaguely representing "all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know". So, the fallacy of omniscience you attach to this strawman also falls.

That being said, I was fascinated by your implicit claim to knowledge. Would you care to explain what you know about god(s) and how you acquired this knowledge?

It's easy. TheBible said the world would look just like this. That's your clue.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 9:45:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:51:44 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:37:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This is has been pulled from this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

At 6/27/2016 4:41:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Skept, you commit the fallacy of loaded question.......
Of course I'd prefer to refer to it as loaded paragraph but whatever....
As follows. The set containing all theologians doesn't only refer to that which is believed it also refers to that which is known. You dismiss this arrogantly because you assume that 7 billion people must be dismissed as being capable of individual knowledge, thus meaning you're also committing the fallacy of omniscience....I.e.,you must be all knowing to assert that all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know. This is called an absolute claim. Therefore my response was adequate for the question. You cannot prove what people actually believe and you cannot claim or infer through structured question to possess absolute knowledge of whether or not something can be known. So keep repeating that magic word belief all you want. I'm sure it gives you solice to "know" there are only beliefs. :There are not.
You know i'll even argue chocolate is actually burnt vanilla right? LoL

Skip, no where in the thread did I make any comment vaguely representing "all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know". So, the fallacy of omniscience you attach to this strawman also falls.

That being said, I was fascinated by your implicit claim to knowledge. Would you care to explain what you know about god(s) and how you acquired this knowledge?

Knowledge implies belief* and, as such, the set of all theologians who possess knowledge is a subset of the set of all theologians who possess belief. The contention is unfounded.

*If one knows that proposition X is true, then it follows that one also believes that X is true. It's incoherent for one to know that X is true and to not also believe X is true. Belief, in the case of knowledge, is redundant, though.

In the thread I pulled this from I was actually asking what DDO theists believe, so I'm not sure how he thinks that is a claim to begin with. Secondly, I never mentioned knowledge, so, ..yea. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 10:25:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 9:44:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:37:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This is has been pulled from this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

At 6/27/2016 4:41:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Skept, you commit the fallacy of loaded question.......
Of course I'd prefer to refer to it as loaded paragraph but whatever....
As follows. The set containing all theologians doesn't only refer to that which is believed it also refers to that which is known. You dismiss this arrogantly because you assume that 7 billion people must be dismissed as being capable of individual knowledge, thus meaning you're also committing the fallacy of omniscience....I.e.,you must be all knowing to assert that all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know. This is called an absolute claim. Therefore my response was adequate for the question. You cannot prove what people actually believe and you cannot claim or infer through structured question to possess absolute knowledge of whether or not something can be known. So keep repeating that magic word belief all you want. I'm sure it gives you solice to "know" there are only beliefs. :There are not.
You know i'll even argue chocolate is actually burnt vanilla right? LoL

Skip, no where in the thread did I make any comment vaguely representing "all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know". So, the fallacy of omniscience you attach to this strawman also falls.

That being said, I was fascinated by your implicit claim to knowledge. Would you care to explain what you know about god(s) and how you acquired this knowledge?

It's easy. TheBible said the world would look just like this. That's your clue.

Are you referring to prophecy, Bronto? If so, I know how you like links - here ya go:

http://www.patheos.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 10:25:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 9:44:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:37:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This is has been pulled from this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

At 6/27/2016 4:41:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Skept, you commit the fallacy of loaded question.......
Of course I'd prefer to refer to it as loaded paragraph but whatever....
As follows. The set containing all theologians doesn't only refer to that which is believed it also refers to that which is known. You dismiss this arrogantly because you assume that 7 billion people must be dismissed as being capable of individual knowledge, thus meaning you're also committing the fallacy of omniscience....I.e.,you must be all knowing to assert that all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know. This is called an absolute claim. Therefore my response was adequate for the question. You cannot prove what people actually believe and you cannot claim or infer through structured question to possess absolute knowledge of whether or not something can be known. So keep repeating that magic word belief all you want. I'm sure it gives you solice to "know" there are only beliefs. :There are not.
You know i'll even argue chocolate is actually burnt vanilla right? LoL

Skip, no where in the thread did I make any comment vaguely representing "all theology consists merely of people who believe and none could be people who know". So, the fallacy of omniscience you attach to this strawman also falls.

That being said, I was fascinated by your implicit claim to knowledge. Would you care to explain what you know about god(s) and how you acquired this knowledge?

It's easy. TheBible said the world would look just like this. That's your clue.
Show us the dome and the sun, moon and stars within that dome.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
It isn't really possible for a human to "know God" simply because the human is finite and "God" is infinite. So that there is no possible way for the human to verify the existence of "God".

Think of it this way: if God were to stand in front of me, right this minute, in whatever glorious state that God exists, how could I possibly verify that it was not a trick of some kind? Either a trick of my own imagination, or of some very skilled magician, or even of some alien life form?

There isn't any way for me to verify it. Because my human mind cannot comprehend the infinite. "God" transcends reality, itself, or it's not "God". And having transcended reality, God cannot then be defined by it.

All theistic propositions are conjecture. Even those that are claimed to be the result of direct personal experience.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:19:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 1:43:43 PM, PureX wrote:
It isn't really possible for a human to "know God" simply because the human is finite and "God" is infinite. So that there is no possible way for the human to verify the existence of "God".

Think of it this way: if God were to stand in front of me, right this minute, in whatever glorious state that God exists, how could I possibly verify that it was not a trick of some kind? Either a trick of my own imagination, or of some very skilled magician, or even of some alien life form?

There isn't any way for me to verify it. Because my human mind cannot comprehend the infinite. "God" transcends reality, itself, or it's not "God". And having transcended reality, God cannot then be defined by it.

All theistic propositions are conjecture. Even those that are claimed to be the result of direct personal experience.
You do realise that these are all claims made about this god by the same people who invented this god. Their claims concerning the god they invented are as true as the claims made by the inventors of Superman concerning his powers.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin