God is Dead (1 Viewer)

[CharisRose]

NO, no rules are changed at all. I never accept your arbitrary rules. Rules are agreed to, either between two people, or by society as a whole.
I never agreed to your rules.

devildavid set the original rule and you agreed with him concerning the use of the word 'rutabaga' being sufficient evidence of the one physical rutabaga located in the physical world.

You set the show me rule for others to follow.

Adding additional rules to the original rules stated above is changing the rules.

I know, you never agreed to my rules but that was based upon the fact that neither you or devildavid could provide the one physical rutabaga based on the rules set by both of you concerning the word rutabaga and the show me rule.

My rules were inspired by a combination of devildavid original rule and your show me rule.

Now you want to add more rules, that rules are agreed to, either between two people or by society as a whole.

When did we agree on these rules you have mentioned? Did I miss these new rules you are now mentioning in addition to all of the other rules you have previously added?

Still not letting you off the hook... show me that one physical rutabaga. TIA

Roseann

 

[RAMOSS]

devildavid set the original rule and you agreed with him concerning the use of the word 'rutabaga' being sufficient evidence of the one physical rutabaga located in the physical world.

You set the show me rule for others to follow.

Adding additional rules to the original rules stated above is changing the rules.

I know, you never agreed to my rules but that was based upon the fact that neither you or devildavid could provide the one physical rutabaga based on the rules set by both of you concerning the word rutabaga and the show me rule.

My rules were inspired by a combination of devildavid original rule and your show me rule.

Now you want to add more rules, that rules are agreed to, either between two people or by society as a whole.

When did we agree on these rules you have mentioned? Did I miss these new rules you are now mentioning in addition to all of the other rules you have previously added?

Still not letting you off the hook... show me that one physical rutabaga. TIA

Roseann

Not quite. I said that the word 'rutabaga' could be more narrowly defined, and instructions can be given so that if someone follows that instructions, a physical rutabaga could be found and examined to correspond to the definition and instructions given through the medium of the online environment. I also said that a photo can be of a rutabaga as evidence of a physical one.

such as

 

[Angel]

Not quite. I said that the word 'rutabaga' could be more narrowly defined, and instructions can be given so that if someone follows that instructions, a physical rutabaga could be found and examined to correspond to the definition and instructions given through the medium of the online environment. I also said that a photo can be of a rutabaga as evidence of a physical one.
...

For God's sake stop wriggling, man!
Roseann has got you dead to rights.
Man up and take correction .

Namaste.

 

[devildavid]

Oh, I get it! Another birdbrain idea from hyperbolic physicalism. Bene.

Another schoolyard taunt when answers fail you. Now go run along and post another video.

 

[devildavid]

Then, if that is your point, you are using the logical fallacy of a 'weak analogy'. A rutabaga is a physical object that objectively exists. The definition of a corporation as a person is a metaphysical concept that only exists in definitions, and how people think about it. If mankind disappeared tomorrow, leaving the rest of life on earth intact, the rutabaga would still exist , as a physical object. The corporation would be gone. It only exists in the thoughts of people.

And those thoughts exist physically.

 

[Angel]

Another schoolyard taunt when answers fail you. Now go run along and post another video.

Your Hyperbolic Materialism has been exposed for the bankrupt world view it is. I could list the absurdities you've confessed, and I will if you persist in your pestering.

Namaste.

 

[devildavid]

Your Hyperbolic Materialism has been exposed for the bankrupt world view it is. I could list the absurdities you've confessed, and I will if you persist in your pestering.

Namaste.

Go ahead. Make my day.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes. Can you guess why?

I have no idea how the scientific method is scientifically provable... If you know how, I'd be glad to acquire some new knowledge from you.

 

[RAMOSS]

I have no idea how the scientific method is scientifically provable... If you know how, I'd be glad to acquire some new knowledge from you.

The scientific method gets better results for the advancement of knowledge. It gives better results when it comes to the development of technology, and to filter out BAD ideas. So far, it is the method that gets the best results.

 

[gfm7175]

The scientific method gets better results for the advancement of knowledge. It gives better results when it comes to the development of technology, and to filter out BAD ideas. So far, it is the method that gets the best results.

To be clear, I'm not knocking the scientific method in any way, and I do agree that it is very useful. But that doesn't directly address if the scientific method is scientifically provable. My overall point by asking that question is that one can't solely use and rely on science to gain wisdom because the scientific method itself can't exist without borrowing numerous presuppositions from philosophy.

 

[RAMOSS]

To be clear, I'm not knocking the scientific method in any way, and I do agree that it is very useful. But that doesn't directly address if the scientific method is scientifically provable. My overall point by asking that question is that one can't solely use and rely on science to gain wisdom because the scientific method itself can't exist without borrowing numerous presuppositions from philosophy.

It's not something that is a matter of 'being provable'. It's a method, a tool. It is not making a claim about the nature of the world, but rather a method for examining the data, and a way to see if a model fits the data, or has to be modified or rejected.

 

[Angel]

It's not something that is a matter of 'being provable'. It's a method, a tool. It is not making a claim about the nature of the world, but rather a method for examining the data, and a way to see if a model fits the data, or has to be modified or rejected.

It assumes a nature of the world, its uniformity and persistence. The scientific method cannot itself be "proved." You scientismists arguing otherwise don't understand the nature of your god.

 

[Angel]

Your Hyperbolic Materialism has been exposed for the bankrupt world view it is. I could list the absurdities you've confessed, and I will if you persist in your pestering.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Hyperbolic Materialist devildavid has, in various posts and threads, claimed:

1. the past is physically real
2. science has nothing to do with meaning
3. all arguments are word games
4. science does not rely on argument
5. personal experience is not empirical
6. art and literature tell us nothing about reality
7. science is the exclusive source of knowledge
8. meaning is illusion
9. God is delusion


I hope this hyperbolic materialist starter kit makes your day.

Namaste.

 

[gfm7175]

Hyperbolic Materialist devildavid has, in various posts and threads, claimed:

1. the past is physically real
2. science has nothing to do with meaning
3. all arguments are word games
4. science does not rely on argument
5. personal experience is not empirical
6. art and literature tell us nothing about reality
7. science is the exclusive source of knowledge
8. meaning is illusion
9. God is delusion


I hope this hyperbolic materialist starter kit makes your day.

Namaste.

It made my day at least...
I especially get a kick out of the last three, although they all are pretty good.

 

[zyzygy]

It made my day at least...
I especially get a kick out of the last three, although they all are pretty good.

Yes, they are accurate.

 

[Angel]

Yes, they are accurate.

Accurate and absurd, yes.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, they are accurate.

Science is the exclusive source of knowledge? Even though the scientific method is based on presuppositions from philosophy? Hmmmm...

 

[devildavid]

Hyperbolic Materialist devildavid has, in various posts and threads, claimed:

1. the past is physically real
2. science has nothing to do with meaning
3. all arguments are word games
4. science does not rely on argument
5. personal experience is not empirical
6. art and literature tell us nothing about reality
7. science is the exclusive source of knowledge
8. meaning is illusion
9. God is delusion


I hope this hyperbolic materialist starter kit makes your day.

Namaste.

Sounds pretty good to me. But a tad inaccurate in parts. Science is a method to use to explain physical reality. Knowledge is acquired in various ways, not merely through the use of science.

A general meaning of life is an illusion. You can get your own personal meaning which is valid for you alone.

Science is about describing physical reality and explaining as best it can how it works. It says nothing about the meaning of what it examines.

Science does not rely solely on argument; there must be supporting physical evidence and testing.

Art and literature give us one individual's point of view which we may or may not relate to or find is a valid view of reality.

I hope this clears up the caricature of my views presented by Angel.

 

[zyzygy]

Science is the exclusive source of knowledge? Even though the scientific method is based on presuppositions from philosophy? Hmmmm...

Name some of these presuppositions.

 

[Angel]

Sounds pretty good to me. But a tad inaccurate in parts. Science is a method to use to explain physical reality. Knowledge is acquired in various ways, not merely through the use of science.

A general meaning of life is an illusion. You can get your own personal meaning which is valid for you alone.

Science is about describing physical reality and explaining as best it can how it works. It says nothing about the meaning of what it examines.

Science does not rely solely on argument; there must be supporting physical evidence and testing.

Art and literature give us one individual's point of view which we may or may not relate to or find is a valid view of reality.

I hope this clears up the caricature of my views presented by Angel.

I'm glad to see you backpedaling from your scientism and your extreme views on meaning, though you're still in the dark as to the dependence of science on meaning and the argument behind the scientific method itself, and your finessing of your former disparagement of art and literature will only work with those unfamiliar with your former dismissals, which I presume is what you're hoping, and you omit four of the nine absurdities credited to you, based on past posts.

Namaste.

 

[gfm7175]

Name some of these presuppositions.

1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers

 

[RAMOSS]

1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers

Uh. Numbers don't exist. They are a metaphorical construct that is used to describe the world.

 

[Angel]

Uh. Numbers don't exist. They are a metaphorical construct that is used to describe the world.

Uh, there's another view of numbers in the field of mathematics itself.

Philosophy of Mathematics
Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

Many working mathematicians have been mathematical realists; they see themselves as discoverers of naturally occurring objects. Examples include Paul Erdős and Kurt Gödel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Mathematical Platonism
Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities. For example, a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time and has the characteristics it does regardless of any mental or physical activities of human beings. Mathematical platonists are often called "realists," although, strictly speaking, there can be realists who are not platonists because they do not accept the platonist requirement that mathematical entities be abstract.

Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

 

[CharisRose]

Not quite. I said that the word 'rutabaga' could be more narrowly defined, and instructions can be given so that if someone follows that instructions, a physical rutabaga could be found and examined to correspond to the definition and instructions given through the medium of the online environment. I also said that a photo can be of a rutabaga as evidence of a physical one.

such as

Yeaaaaaaa another Merry-Go-Round Ride!!!!!!!

I agree, you said all of the above^

But, before you said all that... you agreed with devildavid's idea that the word > 'rutabaga' was sufficient evidence.

The original rule was offered with the idea, that the word 'rutabaga' was all that was needed as sufficient evidence for the existence of the physical rutabaga in the physical world.

In other words nothing else was needed except the word rutabaga and that word was sufficient evidence.

What you said above^ was offered> After, I as the skeptic requested the one physical rutabaga.

(that request was inspired by your 'Show Me' rule you expect others to follow concerning the answers you seek from them)

When both you and devidavid were incapable of providing what I requested that is when the new rule was added requesting my help via instructions to help you and devidavid prove the original rule.

Then, what followed were more rules, one of which you allowed yourself to use, the rule you didn't accept when I used your idea. (symbolic representation)

Then another follow up rule about rules was offered by you.

Now your answer to my post is you simply repeating some of the rules you added after the original rule.

Still not letting you off the hook... Show me the one physical Rutabaga.

Sorry, but I think> You are reluctant to admit the obvious limitations of this online environment. Those limitations are why you are incapable of providing an actual physical object that exists in the physical world through the medium of the online environment.

Roseann:comp:

 

[Angel]

The scientific method gets better results for the advancement of knowledge. It gives better results when it comes to the development of technology, and to filter out BAD ideas. So far, it is the method that gets the best results.

Scientism on the march!