Evangelize me!

[BetterCallSaul]

one example of something people (your idea of me would be best) believe that is not founded on their sense impressions.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

You cannot conclude that anything is true based on personal experience. Why? Because no one has universal experience of past, present, and future events everywhere. This is the fallacy of induction. No valid argument can be constructed based on your experience.

hypnotically implanted suggestion, definitely.

 

[erowe1]

one example of something people (your idea of me would be best) believe that is not founded on their sense impressions.

Sure. Again, see post 102.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

That isn't a sense impression or an argument that was even with me...

just tell me one thing! There should be a whole list of examples if this is so obvious to you

 

[otherone]

You cannot conclude that anything is true based on personal experience. Why? Because no one has universal experience of past, present, and future events everywhere. This is the fallacy of induction. No valid argument can be constructed based on your experience.

Try to keep up. I was asked what makes an argument a strong one. Induction is assumed. We live in an inductive world, not a logical one. I commit the "fallacy of induction" every time I expect my car to start when I turn the key.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Post 102 says, "call the following Claim A: sense impressions are a strong one (argument)"

I don't understand how that is an example of a thing people believe without a sense impression. They have senses that have gathered data about X,and so, think,feel, and conclude, "my sense impressions are evidence."

 

[erowe1]

That isn't a sense impression or an argument that was even with me...

just tell me one thing! There should be a whole list of examples if this is so obvious to you

I agree, it isn't a sense impression. That's exactly what you challenged me to give you: something that you believe that isn't a sense impression.

You say it wasn't an argument with you, but it's precisely the post that you replied to that started this argument between you and me. (Scratch that. Yes it was an argument with you. I just went back and checked.)

And never mind that anyway, let's just make it an argument with you. Do you believe Claim A or not? The possibilities are either, yes you do, or no you don't.

For reference, Claim A is as follows:

For an argument to be valid, it must be based on sense impressions.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Can a line segment understand the square? Can a square understand the cube? Can a cube grok the tesseract?

Not without some data from outside of their realm of perception.

One inhabitant of the squareoverse tells another, "imagine an infinite number of parallel squares mushed together for a certain distance."

The other says, "But then how do we move between these 'parallel squareoverses' of yours?"

The first comes back, "No, no, it's not like moving between different squareoverses, it's more like there is another square dimension set perpendicular to this squareoverse, so you can just move that way too, like you normally move this way."

The other returns, "Pssh! you are so silly! Make up your mind, parallel or perpendicular! It can't be both! You are either retarded or you failed flatometry!"

Nobody in flatland can see or comprehend the concept of 'volume' without actually wanting to grasp the concept of volume. In like fashion, nobody in the time-space universe can see or comprehend the concept of 'eternity' without actually wanting to grasp the concept of eternity.

The very kind of enlightenment being discussed here, by it's very nature, cannot be had without the person genuinely wanting it. I don't mean someone who gets engaged just to prove it wrong but who would be 'ok' if they were proven wrong instead. Anything the first squaroverse guy says to the second can be turned into something else, so the critic will always find a reason to reject the existence of cubes.

So we look for the flatlander's version of Foxx Mulder's poster "I Want To Believe" in the third dimension, and there is the flatlander than can achieve the enlightenment. Anybody who does not already want to comprehend it, will not grasp it. Anybody who has not already in some way been touched by the transcendent realm (eternity to us, volume to the flatlanders) will not have the necessary desire to genuinely seek it out.

There are theories I am friendly to that make that a far less depressing understanding. One specifically talks about those who died outside of God being given to the 1000 year reign to come to truth, when truth will be completely in everyones faces and undeniable. That of course is speculation, but it works mechanically within the revelation, and it works ideologically within the nature of the revelation, not to mention explaining the existence of two, separate judgements.

Squareoverse folks will be open to comprehending the cube, when squareoverse folks legitimately want to comprehend the cube, and not before.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

True. Tell me one thing that I have to believe in order to conform to whatever idea you are talking about.

Saying, "sense impressions determine the rightness of an argument" IS A SENSE IMPRESSION. Because I have only ever seen, heard, or felt things that lead me to conclude, "oh well that's true."

 

[erowe1]

Post 102 says, "call the following Claim A: sense impressions are a strong one (argument)"

I don't understand how that is an example of a thing people believe without a sense impression. They have senses that have gathered data about X,and so, think,feel, and conclude, "my sense impressions are evidence."

So, you don't see anything wrong with someone believing that their sense impressions are valid, and basing that argument on their sense impressions.

Isn't that kind of like believing that everything the Bible says is true, and basing that argument on a verse of the Bible?

Like I said, if you're that intent on rejecting the laws of logic, then no argument will be of any use to you.

 

[erowe1]

Saying, "sense impressions determine the rightness of an argument" IS A SENSE IMPRESSION. Because I have only ever seen, heard, or felt things that lead me to conclude, "oh well that's true."

If you really mean this, then you have chosen the option of being illogical. I find that atheists often have to resort to this in order to avoid accepting truths they are unwilling to accept.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

So, you don't see anything wrong with someone believing that their sense impressions are valid, and basing that argument on their sense impressions.

we aren't talking about believing your sense impressions, we are talking about how they necessarily are the instruments by which knowledge of truth is acquired.

If someone raises their hands upward in an aggressive manner, and you see that, and your body makes some rapid calculations like, "Those hands he threw up are in range to strike me," then your own body, without even consulting the portions of your brain that deal in "belief," will immediately move to neutralize this threat against you. No belief at all occuring.

Isn't that kind of like believing that everything the Bible says is true, and basing that argument on a verse of the Bible?

NO! The Bible is an external thing- without very developed sensory immersion (listening to authority figures that scare or inspire you over a long period of time, or reading it over a period) then it's just a block of processed murdered tree parts. Whereas your arm is your arm all the time, according to your senses.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Now, it's just a matter of determining which are flatlanders, which from the squareoverse and which from cubeoverse. Then we can all go find the 12th dimension and learn it's all completely different than any of it.

 

[erowe1]

we aren't talking about believing your sense impressions, we are talking about how they necessarily are the instruments by which knowledge of truth is acquired.

Oh, OK.

In that case, let's take the following claim, and call it Claim B:

Sense impressions are necessarily the instruments by which knowledge of truth is acquired.

Do you have knowledge of the truth of Claim B?

Once again, either you do, and you base that knowledge on sense impressions, which would beg the question. Or you do not, in which case, welcome to the club.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

I just don't understand why the Cube is called a God and then treated like some guy people know. I am not anti-cube!

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Erowe, I don't get it. Maybe because you are using silly terms that I never studied. Wtf is "begging the question?" I have an aversion to googling things with the word Beg in them... lol

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Let's say I have to take a crap...Where is my faith in that process?

 

[erowe1]

Erowe, I don't get it. Maybe because you are using silly terms that I never studied. Wtf is "begging the question?" I have an aversion to googling things with the word Beg in them... lol

Begging the question is a term that you would know if you had ever studied any logic at all. And if all this time you didn't even know what it meant, you shouldn't have bothered arguing against a claim that used the phrase. No wonder you came across looking so hopelessly illogical.

It means to presuppose your conclusion.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Try to keep up. I was asked what makes an argument a strong one. Induction is assumed. We live in an inductive world, not a logical one. I commit the "fallacy of induction" every time I expect my car to start when I turn the key.

One of the insoluble problems of the scientific method is the fallacy of*induction;*induction, in fact, is a problem for all forms of empiricism (learning by experience). The problem is simply this:*induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matter how many crows, for example, you observe to be black, the conclusion that all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple: Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not colorblind, and are actually looking at crows, you have not, and cannot, see all crows. Millions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of the planet. Millions more will hatch after you die.*Induction*is always a fallacy.*There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matter this way:

"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."

Recognizing that*induction*is always fallacious, philosophers of science in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, developed the notion that science does not rely on*induction*at all. Instead, it consists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refutations of conjectures. But in their attempts to save science from logical disgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to knowledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. Karl Popper, one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers of science, wrote:

"First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses....In science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement:...our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;...it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths."

Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about the universe, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which begins by denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledge at all.

...

 

[BetterCallSaul]

It means to presuppose your conclusion.

well no denying that- I can only doubt with my senses also, so, I have only ever been able to even use logic within the context of my senses.