Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-12-2002, 05:23 AM

Tercel in a long post, principally about noses (though 99% is involved in the trend), seems to argue a crypto-Berkeyan position that one, using empiricism, can't really even "know" that one's nose exists. This is a sad sort of reductionism that is not practised under normal cicumstances by Tercel, otherwise we must assume that Tercel is arguing with entities s/he is willing to accept may not exist.

In his discussion about noses s/he seems to have missed out on the sense of touch as well as the existence of mirrors. I don't think noses are just pink blurs for the eyes to see. Mirrors are wonderful devices when use well.

Our knowlege of the world comes directly from our sensory perceptions, so everything that Tercel knows comes the same way. Human beings don't have extra sensory equipment.

Tercel:

'I see a pink blur if I cross my eyes, the only way I know it as my "nose" is by inference based on past experience.'

Why ignore the (continuous) sensory data? Or the relationship between actions of smelling, where you have to use the nose to get a certain type of sensory data, which involves consciously directing the nose to the target to get the data.

Your nose is part of your direct sensory perception, ie of the most primitive data that you receive, before being worked over by the brain and elaborated upon.

Any notion of a god that you have is not based on the primitive sensory data you receive. In fact, you are unable to verify to yourself any direct perception of a god. It would have hit the news otherwise.

Another great line: "The non-existence of my nose is possible. Something might be interfering with my perceptions in such a way that empirical observation demonstrates me to have a nose when really I haven't. Certainly the non-existence of my nose does not imply contradiction."

Why posit something that is not evident into the argument that makes the case you are attempting to make that much more extracted from reality? The argument this belongs to says that you can know absolutely nothing. This is not the case though, for you claim to know things, so you don't believe your own argumentation. It is merely sophistry.

"Now I do believe my nose exists, I am very very sure of its existence, but it is possible that it doesn't really exist and hence I don't truly know that my nose exists. It is not complete knowledge."

What does the term complete knowledge mean (in some context that we all will accept)?

Tercel:
"it is precisely why God's existence is capable of being more certain than the existence of my nose. You don't need faith to believe in God's existence: You need to believe in God's existence before you can have faith."

Hence without belief you cannot have this brand of faith.

99%
--------------------------------------------------I certainly don't need faith to know that my nose exists. I just know.
--------------------------------------------------

Tercel responds:
"EXACTLY. Same with God."

Tercel just knows that God exists. This knowledge of course does not come from direct sensory input of this god; it only comes from what s/he has read or been told about the god; so the comparison with the nose simply doesn't cut it for at least the nose, with regard to direct evidence, has support. Tercel does not engage in the notion of direct empirical support of the belief that God exists, yet argues from some notion of "know" which does not entail direct observation or repeatability of the said existence. Tercel doesn't know *nothing* about what s/he's talking about if one uses the common usage of the term "know", which is based on direct observance of data.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 05:32 AM

>Tercel just knows that God exists. This
> knowledge of course does not come from direct
> sensory input of this god; it only comes from
> what s/he has read or been told about the god

You admit that your belief in a god comes from hearsay, not from any sensory information.

By the same token, I have read/been told that George the Giant Turnip exists. Does that make it so?

Jeff

spin · 03-12-2002, 09:44 AM

Jeff responding to my analysis of Tercel:
>Tercel just knows that God exists. This
> knowledge of course does not come from direct
> sensory input of this god; it only comes from
> what s/he has read or been told about the god

says

"You admit that your belief in a god comes from hearsay, not from any sensory information."

I don't admit to anything of the sort. I have no belief in a god. Tercel does, and I was looking at that belief for what it was worth.

"By the same token, I have read/been told that George the Giant Turnip exists. Does that make it so?"

As much as Tercel's god.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 10:32 AM

Spin,

My apologies; I thought you were arguing on behalf of the existence of a god.

mea culpa. mea maxima culpa.

Jeff

Mageth · 03-12-2002, 10:32 AM

If you understood what theophilus said why perform these hand stands?

Something anyone who says this sort of thing should know, is that an English language education is so worried about spelling that it pays no attention to grammar, morphology or phonetics. In fact, most teachers don't understand what any of these terms really mean.

Umm...spin...I was mocking theophilus's "hand standing" pedantry about spelling. Read back over the thread and you'll see my "hand stands" were copied verbatim from his posts.

spin · 03-12-2002, 12:52 PM

Mageth: "Umm...spin...I was mocking theophilus's "hand standing" pedantry about spelling. Read back over the thread and you'll see my "hand stands" were copied verbatim from his posts."

And you were not the target of the tirade: the general mentality was. You just happened to be the bunny at the time! The subject is a bit like Windows: no matter how bad it is nobody's going to give it up -- either Windows or the utterly crazed orthographic system.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

Mageth · 03-12-2002, 01:06 PM

spin - Do you understand that I totally disagree with theophilus' assertion that bad spelling is indicative of irrationality, and hence my mocking response when he committed a similar error, and thus was not a "bunny" to be targeted?

Anyway, enough on this subject. I suggest we all drop it (before the mods tell us to

).

theophilus · 03-12-2002, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:


*snort*

If I recall, your larger argument went along the lines of, "You made a typo, therefore you're wrong about everything you write."

Tres relevant.

Jeff

Well, I guess one might be inclined to think that your memory or your comprehension is faulty.

I pointed out your unsupported statement about "theists in general," to which you have still failed to respond (except to try to misdirect the argument) and I pointed out that your statement about the trinity being one god in "three beings" indicated a basic lack of understanding of the doctrine and, therefore, made your comment irrelevant.

bonduca · 03-12-2002, 05:43 PM

er..at the risk of inflaming this nonsensical situation further, theophilus, you are the one who found the typo to be of significance.

I would find your interpretation of the Trinity to be of greater interest than this silly arguing. Would you be kind enough to post that here?

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 05:57 PM

Yeah, I'm still waiting for that too, Bonduca. Let's see if he'll do it.

(I suspect it'll be a URL instead.)

Jeff

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]

03-12-2002, 12:52 PM	#76
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mageth: "Umm...spin...I was mocking theophilus's "hand standing" pedantry about spelling. Read back over the thread and you'll see my "hand stands" were copied verbatim from his posts." And you were not the target of the tirade: the general mentality was. You just happened to be the bunny at the time! The subject is a bit like Windows: no matter how bad it is nobody's going to give it up -- either Windows or the utterly crazed orthographic system. [ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-12-2002, 05:43 PM	#79
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	er..at the risk of inflaming this nonsensical situation further, theophilus, you are the one who found the typo to be of significance. I would find your interpretation of the Trinity to be of greater interest than this silly arguing. Would you be kind enough to post that here? [ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

03-12-2002, 05:57 PM	#80
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Yeah, I'm still waiting for that too, Bonduca. Let's see if he'll do it. (I suspect it'll be a URL instead.) Jeff [ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2002, 05:23 AM	#71
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Tercel in a long post, principally about noses (though 99% is involved in the trend), seems to argue a crypto-Berkeyan position that one, using empiricism, can't really even "know" that one's nose exists. This is a sad sort of reductionism that is not practised under normal cicumstances by Tercel, otherwise we must assume that Tercel is arguing with entities s/he is willing to accept may not exist. In his discussion about noses s/he seems to have missed out on the sense of touch as well as the existence of mirrors. I don't think noses are just pink blurs for the eyes to see. Mirrors are wonderful devices when use well. Our knowlege of the world comes directly from our sensory perceptions, so everything that Tercel knows comes the same way. Human beings don't have extra sensory equipment. Tercel: 'I see a pink blur if I cross my eyes, the only way I know it as my "nose" is by inference based on past experience.' Why ignore the (continuous) sensory data? Or the relationship between actions of smelling, where you have to use the nose to get a certain type of sensory data, which involves consciously directing the nose to the target to get the data. Your nose is part of your direct sensory perception, ie of the most primitive data that you receive, before being worked over by the brain and elaborated upon. Any notion of a god that you have is not based on the primitive sensory data you receive. In fact, you are unable to verify to yourself any direct perception of a god. It would have hit the news otherwise. Another great line: "The non-existence of my nose is possible. Something might be interfering with my perceptions in such a way that empirical observation demonstrates me to have a nose when really I haven't. Certainly the non-existence of my nose does not imply contradiction." Why posit something that is not evident into the argument that makes the case you are attempting to make that much more extracted from reality? The argument this belongs to says that you can know absolutely nothing. This is not the case though, for you claim to know things, so you don't believe your own argumentation. It is merely sophistry. "Now I do believe my nose exists, I am very very sure of its existence, but it is possible that it doesn't really exist and hence I don't truly know that my nose exists. It is not complete knowledge." What does the term complete knowledge mean (in some context that we all will accept)? Tercel: "it is precisely why God's existence is capable of being more certain than the existence of my nose. You don't need faith to believe in God's existence: You need to believe in God's existence before you can have faith." Hence without belief you cannot have this brand of faith. 99% --------------------------------------------------I certainly don't need faith to know that my nose exists. I just know. -------------------------------------------------- Tercel responds: "EXACTLY. Same with God." Tercel just knows that God exists. This knowledge of course does not come from direct sensory input of this god; it only comes from what s/he has read or been told about the god; so the comparison with the nose simply doesn't cut it for at least the nose, with regard to direct evidence, has support. Tercel does not engage in the notion of direct empirical support of the belief that God exists, yet argues from some notion of "know" which does not entail direct observation or repeatability of the said existence. Tercel doesn't know nothing about what s/he's talking about if one uses the common usage of the term "know", which is based on direct observance of data.

03-12-2002, 05:32 AM	#72
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	>Tercel just knows that God exists. This > knowledge of course does not come from direct > sensory input of this god; it only comes from > what s/he has read or been told about the god You admit that your belief in a god comes from hearsay, not from any sensory information. By the same token, I have read/been told that George the Giant Turnip exists. Does that make it so? Jeff

03-12-2002, 09:44 AM	#73
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jeff responding to my analysis of Tercel: >Tercel just knows that God exists. This > knowledge of course does not come from direct > sensory input of this god; it only comes from > what s/he has read or been told about the god says "You admit that your belief in a god comes from hearsay, not from any sensory information." I don't admit to anything of the sort. I have no belief in a god. Tercel does, and I was looking at that belief for what it was worth. "By the same token, I have read/been told that George the Giant Turnip exists. Does that make it so?" As much as Tercel's god.

03-12-2002, 10:32 AM	#74
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Spin, My apologies; I thought you were arguing on behalf of the existence of a god. mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. Jeff

03-12-2002, 10:32 AM	#75
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	If you understood what theophilus said why perform these hand stands? Something anyone who says this sort of thing should know, is that an English language education is so worried about spelling that it pays no attention to grammar, morphology or phonetics. In fact, most teachers don't understand what any of these terms really mean. Umm...spin...I was mocking theophilus's "hand standing" pedantry about spelling. Read back over the thread and you'll see my "hand stands" were copied verbatim from his posts.

03-12-2002, 01:06 PM	#77
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	spin - Do you understand that I totally disagree with theophilus' assertion that bad spelling is indicative of irrationality, and hence my mocking response when he committed a similar error, and thus was not a "bunny" to be targeted? Anyway, enough on this subject. I suggest we all drop it (before the mods tell us to ).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.