Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Methodological empiricism fine, Philosophical empiricism? Where and what is the support for it?

(Wearily)…yet again…

First, “philosophical empiricism” doesn’t mean what you think (or claim) it means. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – “the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). No-one that I know of argues for physicalism. 

Second, materialism confines itself only to distinguishing demonstrable truths claims from non-demonstrable truth claims. Thus it tells us that using a parachute will enable you to land safely so “parachutes work” is a demonstrable truth, whereas “praying to god will cause him to fly me safely down” is just a non-demonstrable truth claim.

The first category of truths are called “objective” (ie, true for everyone), the second “subjective” (ie, true only for the person who believes them). This distinction works perfectly well with no appeal to universal or absolute realities.

Your cheat is to misdescribe empirically verified objective truths as requiring universal or absolute veracity, and when that can’t be shown to reduce both truth types (objective and subjective) to epistemic equivalence. Laying waste to the epistemological difference like this is sometimes called “going nuclear”. As well as being wrong in itself, in permitting your god it also permits unicorns, Jack Frost and any other conjecture that pops into anyone’s head. This alone should give you pause.

You won’t engage with any of this of course (you never do) but at least you have no excuse for pretending that it hasn’t been explained to you.

Again.           
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

(Wearily)…yet again…

First, “philosophical empiricism” doesn’t mean what you think (or claim) it means. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – “the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). No-one that I know of argues for physicalism. 

Second, materialism confines itself only to distinguishing demonstrable truths claims from non-demonstrable truth claims. Thus it tells us that using a parachute will enable you to land safely so “parachutes work” is a demonstrable truth, whereas “praying to god will cause him to fly me safely down” is just a non-demonstrable truth claim.

The first category of truths are called “objective” (ie, true for everyone), the second “subjective” (ie, true only for the person who believes them). This distinction works perfectly well with no appeal to universal or absolute realities.

Your cheat is to misdescribe empirically verified objective truths as requiring universal or absolute veracity, and when that can’t be shown to reduce both truth types (objective and subjective) to epistemic equivalence. Laying waste to the epistemological difference like this is sometimes called “going nuclear”. As well as being wrong in itself, in permitting your god it also permits unicorns, Jack Frost and any other conjecture that pops into anyone’s head. This alone should give you pause.

You won’t engage with any of this of course (you never do) but at least you have no excuse for pretending that it hasn’t been explained to you.

Again.         

NowIppy and Owlswing perhaps you can put in your words what Hillside has said.

Hillside, give the reasons why you are a leprechaunist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me:

You won’t engage with any of this of course (you never do) but at least you have no excuse for pretending that it hasn’t been explained to you.

You:

NowIppy and Owlswing perhaps you can put in your words what Hillside has said.

Truly I have the power of prophecy. Does this mean I’m a god too?

Hillside, give the reasons why you are a leprechaunist.

I’m not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I’m not.

Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why not?

For the same reason I'm not a Christian. Before you slide way from it with your typical evasiveness though do you now understand where you went wrong (and have always gone wrong) re empiricism? It would save me having to explain it to you once again further down the line if you do. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

For the same reason I'm not a Christian.

And that is?
I think you said recently you were not a leprechaunist for the same reason as I was not a leprechaunist although you never got round to explaining that either. Now you seem to be going back on it. Contemptable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that is?

Absence of reason or evidence.

I think you said recently you were not a leprechaunist for the same reason as I was not a leprechaunist although you never got round to explaining that either.

Yes I did. Absence of reason or evidence.

Now you seem to be going back on it.

No I’m not. Stop lying.

Contemptable.

It’s spelled contemptible.

So now you’ve tried to slide out of the back door again in the hope that no-one notices - do you now understand where you went wrong (and have always gone wrong) re empiricism? It would save me having to explain it to you once again further down the line if you do.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Absence of reason or evidence.

Please see previous about arguing from philosophical empiricism.
Where is your reason for doing so? Careful now, following your own rules you will also need evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Please see previous about arguing from philosophical empiricism.
Where is your reason for doing so? Careful now, following your own rules you will also need evidence.

Try reading carefully for comprehension:

First, “philosophical empiricism” doesn’t mean what you think (or claim) it means. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – “the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). No-one that I know of argues for physicalism.

Second, materialism confines itself only to distinguishing demonstrable truths claims from non-demonstrable truth claims. Thus it tells us that using a parachute will enable you to land safely so “parachutes work” is a demonstrable truth, whereas “praying to god will cause him to fly me safely down” is just a non-demonstrable truth claim.

The first category of truths are called “objective” (ie, true for everyone), the second “subjective” (ie, true only for the person who believes them). This distinction works perfectly well with no appeal to universal or absolute realities.

Your cheat is to misdescribe empirically verified objective truths as requiring universal or absolute veracity, and when that can’t be shown to reduce both truth types (objective and subjective) to epistemic equivalence. Laying waste to the epistemological difference like this is sometimes called “going nuclear”. As well as being wrong in itself, in permitting your god it also permits unicorns, Jack Frost and any other conjecture that pops into anyone’s head. This alone should give you pause.

You won’t engage with any of this of course (you never do) but at least you have no excuse for pretending that it hasn’t been explained to you.

Again.

Do you now understand where you went wrong (and have always gone wrong) re empiricism? It would save me having to explain it to you once again further down the line if you do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try reading carefully for comprehension:

Do you now understand where you went wrong (and have always gone wrong) re empiricism? It would save me having to explain it to you once again further down the line if you do.

I haven't gone wrong at all. You have no warrant arguing from philosophical empiricism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I haven't gone wrong at all. You have no warrant arguing from philosophical empiricism.

Yes you have. "Philosophical empiricism" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It's a straw man. If you want to argue against physicalism though, then say so. See point 1 below, and then try again.

First, “philosophical empiricism” doesn’t mean what you think (or claim) it means. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – “the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). No-one that I know of argues for physicalism.

Second, materialism confines itself only to distinguishing demonstrable truths claims from non-demonstrable truth claims. Thus it tells us that using a parachute will enable you to land safely so “parachutes work” is a demonstrable truth, whereas “praying to god will cause him to fly me safely down” is just a non-demonstrable truth claim.

The first category of truths are called “objective” (ie, true for everyone), the second “subjective” (ie, true only for the person who believes them). This distinction works perfectly well with no appeal to universal or absolute realities.

Your cheat is to misdescribe empirically verified objective truths as requiring universal or absolute veracity, and when that can’t be shown to reduce both truth types (objective and subjective) to epistemic equivalence. Laying waste to the epistemological difference like this is sometimes called “going nuclear”. As well as being wrong in itself, in permitting your god it also permits unicorns, Jack Frost and any other conjecture that pops into anyone’s head. This alone should give you pause.

You won’t engage with any of this of course (you never do) but at least you have no excuse for pretending that it hasn’t been explained to you.

Again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you have. "Philosophical empiricism" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It's a straw man. If you want to argue against physicalism

No.....I want YOU to argue for it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your cheat is to misdescribe empirically verified objective truths as requiring universal or absolute veracity, and when that can’t be shown to reduce both truth types (objective and subjective) to epistemic equivalence.         

No My point is that philosophical versions of empiricism, physicalism, materialism and naturalism as not being empirically verified objective truths.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No.....I want YOU to argue for it.

As it’s a position I’ve said very clearly and consistently that I don’t subscribe to, why on earth would I? Your barrage of lies about that doesn’t change the fact of it. It’s your straw man - you defend it if you want to.   

No My point is that philosophical versions of empiricism, physicalism, materialism and naturalism as not being empirically verified objective truths.

Just smashing together fundamentally different positions by putting the word “philosophical” in front of them is more of your dishonesty. I’ve set out many times before and several times recently what I actually think. Here it is again as it seems to be passing you by still:

First, “philosophical empiricism” doesn’t mean what you think (or claim) it means. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – “the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). No-one that I know of argues for physicalism.

Second, materialism confines itself only to distinguishing demonstrable truths claims from non-demonstrable truth claims. Thus it tells us that using a parachute will enable you to land safely so “parachutes work” is a demonstrable truth, whereas “praying to god will cause him to fly me safely down” is just a non-demonstrable truth claim.

The first category of truths are called “objective” (ie, true for everyone), the second “subjective” (ie, true only for the person who believes them). This distinction works perfectly well with no appeal to universal or absolute realities.

Your cheat is to misdescribe empirically verified objective truths as requiring universal or absolute veracity, and when that can’t be shown to reduce both truth types (objective and subjective) to epistemic equivalence. Laying waste to the epistemological difference like this is sometimes called “going nuclear”. As well as being wrong in itself, in permitting your god it also permits unicorns, Jack Frost and any other conjecture that pops into anyone’s head. This alone should give you pause.

You won’t engage with any of this of course (you never do) but at least you have no excuse for pretending that it hasn’t been explained to you.

Again.

If you want anyone to treat your various theistic claims of fact seriously, you need to find a path from subjective truth to objective truth. So far, you haven’t even bothered to try. It’s not a good look.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As it’s a position I’ve said very clearly and consistently that I don’t subscribe to, why on earth would I? Your barrage of lies about that doesn’t change the fact of it. It’s your straw man - you defend it if you want to.   

Just smashing together fundamentally different positions by putting the word “philosophical” in front of them is more of your dishonesty. I’ve set out many times before and several times recently what I actually think. Here it is again as it seems to be passing you by still:

If you want anyone to treat your various theistic claims of fact seriously, you need to find a path from subjective truth to objective truth. So far, you haven’t even bothered to try. It’s not a good look.   

Many people have taken the gospel seriously and have converted.
Somebody with hardened dogmatic views and an outrage against what is proposed would perhaps find conversion harder. However biblically some real tough nuts eventually came round.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Many people have taken the gospel seriously and have converted.
Somebody with hardened dogmatic views and an outrage against what is proposed would perhaps find conversion harder. However biblically some real tough nuts eventually came round.

Do you have anything to say that's relevant to the post you were replying to?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Do you have anything to say that's relevant to the post you were replying to?

I thought you were talking about taking the Gospel seriously.

Your position and judging by the frequency you speak on behalf of others tells me that because you don't take it seriously that must be true for others.

My view is that if the Gospel is true it must be true for all similarly if philosophical empiricism which informs your definition of evidence were true it would be true for all.

Your sentiment of the Gospel being true for some is one I can't agree with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I thought you were talking about taking the Gospel seriously.

No, we were talking about your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of empiricism.

Your position and judging by the frequency you speak on behalf of others tells me that because you don't take it seriously that must be true for others.

I don’t speak for others, and I merely explain to you that the arguments you attempt to justify your belief that something is objectively true are wrong.

My view is that if the Gospel is true it must be true for all similarly if philosophical empiricism which informs your definition of evidence were true it would be true for all.

If the gospel is true. Your problem is that, so far at least, you cannot produce a sound justifying argument to show that it is. Just pretending that empiricism means something other than its actual meaning doesn’t help you with that problem.

Your sentiment of the Gospel being true for some is one I can't agree with.

Unless you can find a path from the subjective to the objective about that, you have no basis for not agreeing. It’s just another reason-free faith position.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the gospel is true. Your problem is that, so far at least, you cannot produce a sound justifying argument to show that it is.

You are of course entitled to that opinion. My own is that the moral philosophy on offer by persons such as yourself is not only inadequate but discounts your claim of recognising sound justifying argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are of course entitled to that opinion.

It’s not just an opinion. It’s a response to your claims based on the demonstrable fact that you either don’t bother with a justifying argument at all, or when you do that it always collapses into one or more of a suite of logical fallacies. 

My own is that the moral philosophy on offer by persons such as yourself…

What moral philosophy do you think I’ve argued for? All I need do is to falsify your arguments to justify your claim of objective morality – a simple thing to do.

…is not only inadequate but discounts your claim of recognising sound justifying argument.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence now. What are you even trying to say here?

Oh, and do you intend to slide away from your mistake about empiricism again despite having it explained to you several times now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s not just an opinion. It’s a response to your claims based on the demonstrable fact that you either don’t bother with a justifying argument at all, or when you do that it always collapses into one or more of a suite of logical fallacies. 

What moral philosophy do you think I’ve argued for? All I need do is to falsify your arguments to justify your claim of objective morality – a simple thing to do.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence now. What are you even trying to say here?

Oh, and do you intend to slide away from your mistake about empiricism again despite having it explained to you several times now?

I claim moral realism as I claim mathematical realism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I claim moral realism as I claim mathematical realism.

Why? If I give you a difficult mathematical problem there will be an objectively correct solution to it. That solution is a fact. If I give you a difficult moral problem, how would you propose to identify an objectively correct solution to that? Where's the equivalent moral fact?

You can "claim" anything you like. Unless you can find a sound argument to justify the claim though, there's no reason for anyone else to take the claim seriously.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why? If I give you a difficult mathematical problem there will be an objectively correct solution to it. That solution is a fact. If I give you a difficult moral problem, how would you propose to identify an objectively correct solution to that? Where's the equivalent moral fact?

You can "claim" anything you like. Unless you can find a sound argument to justify the claim though, there's no reason for anyone else to take the claim seriously.     

I claim it is realistic in broadly the same sense that maths is realistic and so do you with your suggestion that you can give me a difficult moral problem. Under your philosophy any solution is as likely to be as right or as wrong as any other with zero arbitration resulting. Moral equations are far harder to get right because our faculties are not as good as mathematic.

[Stranger]

I claim it is realistic in broadly the same sense that maths is realistic and so do you with your suggestion that you can give me a difficult moral problem. Under your philosophy any solution is as likely to be as right or as wrong as any other with zero arbitration resulting. Moral equations are far harder to get right because our faculties are not as good as mathematic.

Which actually doesn't answer the point. There are objective ways in which we can prove that results in mathematics are right or wrong. Unless you can provide an objective method for resolving all moral issues, then even if objective morality exists, it might as well not exist because we have no way to access it. In practice, we have to deal with morality subjectively regardless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which actually doesn't answer the point. There are objective ways in which we can prove that results in mathematics are right or wrong. Unless you can provide an objective method for resolving all moral issues, then even if objective morality exists, it might as well not exist because we have no way to access it. In practice, we have to deal with morality subjectively regardless.

I agree that there is a tendency then to pull 'morality' from out of one's arsehole.