bd-from-kg

Theli:

OK. I didn’t understand it to be a definition, and probably neither did Kenny. By a “truthful” model you mean the model most consistent with “our” observations (whatever you mean by “our”). If a model doesn’t correspond to objective reality it’s still “truthful” (in your terminology) as long as it is the model most consistent with our observations. Got it.

Right ho. Truth is whatever corresponds best to our observations. Since my observations may not match yours, something may be “true for me” but “false for you”; thus “truth” is observer-relative and hence not objective. Sorry if I’m repeating myself; I’m very unaccustomed to this terminology. My usual practice is to say that something is true if it corresponds to reality. Thus in my terminology “Smith killed Brown” is true if and only if Smith killed Brown, regardless of what corresponds best to my (or anyone else’s) observations.

You’re missing the point, which is that consistency is not an adequate criterion of truth – excuse me, of correspondence to reality. The subject, after all, is whether the consistency of our memories is a rational basis for believing them to correspond reasonably well to reality.

Ah, so consistency is an adequate criterion of truth in the case of vivid memories? And what evidence do you have for this? Or is this just a proposal for an alternative, more limited, assumption (i.e., presupposition) regarding the reliability of memory?

Well, you said:

Maybe I’m misreading this, but you seem to be saying that we are justified in using inductive reasoning (i.e., applying the Principle of Induction) by the fact that we have found “repeated similarity” in past observations; that this is the basis for our trusting or having confidence in this kind of reasoning.

The latter is of course true, but I wasn’t arguing for it. My point was what when one goes back to try to justify certain very fundamental beliefs (such as the basic reliability of one’s memory) one finds that they cannot be justified on the basis of evidence but can only be justified as essential presuppositions for rationality itself.

Kuyper

The one playing verbal dodgeball here is YOU. You did not answer any of the questions I put back to you, then turn around with this red-herring that I'm avoiding your questions. Hogwash!!

Your "challenges" are even close to being challenges. You've not considered the illogic of your own positions, which I clearly pointed out. But that's OK.



No, what's been clear here is that YOU do not wish to discuss anything. You only wish to pounce with bold assertion then tuck and run when challenged.



Au contraire. I considered every one of them and found them wanting. Perhaps a remedial course in basic logic would be of service to you.



Your quip that anyone who's gone to war can't help but conclude there is no God is also BS. THAT was my point, as is quite clear in my response. I can't help the fact that your war experience led you to atheism. But you can't extrapolate that to every soldier who'd ever fought in a war. I can tell you just as many opposite stories from people I know personally.

As far as the acronym is concerned...I couldn't care less what it means. If you have something to say, then either say it directly or keep it to yourself.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

K

Kuyper

Is the statement "“truth” is observer-relative and hence not objective" observer related and also not objective? If so, then how can any of us know that it is true? If it rises above that and is objectively true, then that would under-cut your original statement. Which is it?

K

Kuyper

Perhaps so. That's why I said not ALL. Even so, I have encountered many atheists, both in person and on discussion boards such as this one. The common thread that I have observed for most (again not ALL) is that in end they don't believe because they simply don't want to.

Quote:

What does this mean? I don't want to believe in Christian theology because I don't want to believe in anything that doesn't have sufficient evidence and/or logical coherence. Is this a different "want" than the "want" you are talking about?

Not really. Upon what evidence do you base your belief that atheism is true? Also, define "sufficient". What constitutes "sufficient" evidence in order to justify belief? Where does that notion of sufficiency come from? Why is that criteria necessary for everyone in order to justify belief?

Define "coherence". What makes an argument for theism incoherent but an argument for atheism coherent?

Quote:

Has it? Or is it just that millions of people are much more emotionally satisfied with the psychological consequences of a father-figure deity and a universe that has a metaphysical explanation, however irrational? See, this works both ways.

Really? Are you suggesting, then, that atheists believe atheism is true, not on the basis of evidence, but because they find it more "emotionally satisfying"? If it works both ways, then that would be the logical conclusion. Unless, of course, you have irrefutable evidence that atheism is true. Do you?

K

Darth Dane

To answer the title question.

I don't know?
Do you KNOW?
Love is not rational, do you believe Love to be in existance?
You cannot see atoms, yet you believe they exist
You cannot see giants, yet you believe they don't exist.

What is your belief?

BTW, whatever answer anyone comes up with, we can always ask "WHY?" "HOW?"
We are always aware that we can keep asking.....and seemingly that is what we are doing.





DD - Unknown Spliff

capnkirk

TRUE!! Virtually every question I have put to Kuyper, he has responded with a question, demand for definition, or the like. How often has he directly answered a question you put to him?

I finally realized that he is just toying with us, having fun until we finally give up in frustration...then he can convince himself that HE WON...so I have withdrawn.

Abandon this thread; you are arguing with a reflection. Kuyper is just entertaining himself by seeing how long he can make us define and redifine, state and restate our positions into a form that will get a direct response. I contend that such form doesn't exist.

Kuyper, you're a troll...more sophisticated than most, but still a troll! Just beware what happens when daylight shines on a troll. They turn to stone!

Theli

bd-from-kg...

A claim may be true before being proven by observations, but there is no rational foundation for holding it true until such observations are made. What I meant by truth being subjective is that truth deals with concepts in our minds. A claim might very well be true to one person but be false to another, depending on the 2 people's concepts and ideas. There is no objective "standard" concept of ... for instance stone, and thus any argument or claim concerning stones depends on the person/people making the claim.
Can you mention a single truth not based on your/our concepts?

If the point with your example was to create a strawman then I certainly did. I have not said that consistency within one set of observation can produce a rational conclution concerning an unrelated question. As for the book, everything in the book may be consistent within it's own fiction, but to draw conclutions on the reality surrounding us based on it is a far too long step to take.

I would think so, the idea of our memories being consistent gets proven every minute of my life. Every time I click on the powerbutton on my computer it starts, just as my memories tells me that it should. If it doesn't, then my memories tells me that the computer might be unplugged. I check it, and it usually is. Ofcourse, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect something unpredicted to happen. Just that our memories are sufficient for us to perform tasks. Isn't that proof?

I never said that, I have never claimed to act flawlessly either. But I did say that I would trust a vivid memory better than a clouded one, as I have learned from experience.

Why not? The fact that you managed to use your memory to navigate your computer, and type your post should be sufficient to prove that atleast some of your memory is reliable as a basis for truth.

Theli

Darth Dane...

This is true, every sort of conversation is a cooperation of sorts and it requires both parties to have a common ground to stand on, or there will be no conversation. Some people don't understand this, and just keep asking why? why? why? why?

Give and take.

Kuyper

Kirk,

You seem to be under the misapprehension that requests for clarification and questions are evasions. The reason I ask for clarity is precisely because it is in the details of the how terms are defined that gives meaning to an argument. If I didn't question the use of a term, then depending how I answer, you would simply have come back and said "you didn't understand how I meant that" or something similar.

My questions were to make you think about the statements you made in response to me. If you thought about the questions, it might have become clear where the logical fallacies and pre-suppositions come in. But obviously you didn't think about any of them. Rather, you argued by mere assertions and think your terms are self-evident, which they're not. Not one of the "challenges" you posted is irrefutable.
Everyone one of them were built on fallacious pre-suppositions, which is why I asked for definition of terms and posed further questions.

As far as who continues to ask questions, isn't that exactly what you do? No matter what argument for theism is put forth, no matter what challenge to philosophical materialism is made, the skeptic (YOU) always has one more question, one more "challenge". No answer is ever good enough, complete enough or covers enough ground to satisfy.

Since you continue to hold that theism is irrational because there is no evidence for it, I will leave you with one challenge: what evidence do you posses that atheism is true? Of course, you have no such evidence. What you do have is skepticism about the validity of certain theistic arguments, but that it is not the same as having evidence for atheism. Thus your claim that theistic belief is irrational because there is no evidence for it would also make the belief that atheism is true "irrational". (And while we're on the subject, what evidence do you posses that one needs to have evidence in order for one's belief to be rational?")

Sorry if you don't like being asked to clarify your terms or having questions put to you in response to your arguments. Sorry if you don't like having your pre-suppositions questioned. It's called debate. But then, you're not interested in debate. You're only interested in pouncing with assertions, calling them "facts" and then dodging when challenged.

:boohoo:

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

K

Kuyper

It's not self-evident that love isn't rational. Sorry to ask for clarification yet again, but since your position is based on unclear terms, I will. Why is love not rational, in your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of atoms by observing the effects of thier behavior. Atomic bombs come to mind.

What's wrong with continuing to ask? Kirk's bold and unsupported assertion that there is no form in which a question will get a response is patently false.

K