Can you conceive of a possible world where there are non-material entities that cannot be perceived through sensory perception?
How exactly would you be capable of knowing that such a world is not the possible world you live in without presupposing a naturalistic worldview?
I'm guessing the only way out is to deny that one can conceive of a possible world where naturalism is untrue, but I cannot see how one would do this without defining everything through the lens of naturalism in the first place.
B.C.:
ReplyDeleteCan you conceive of a possible world where there are non-material entities that cannot be perceived through sensory perception?
I can imagine "non-material entities" just as easily as you do.
How exactly would you be capable of knowing that such a world is not the possible world you live in without presupposing a naturalistic worldview?
By reason.
Can the "non-material entities" interact with the material world in a way that is objectively detectable? If no, then you're asking how does one detect the undetectable. If yes, I would want to know how.
I would also want to know how to distinguish between the well known imaginings of human beings and these "non-material entities."
You don't see how hopelessly contradictory your arguments are.
ReplyDeleteMy question was whether one can conceive of a possible world where there are non-material entities that cannot be perceived through sensory perception. You basically conceded that you can.
The second question, then, is how you would know that you do not live in such a world. You cannot answer, "By reason," as reason is based upon your worldview and conceptualizing via sensory perception, which you just admitted would not be possible in such a world.
Hence, your question for me is my question for you, "How would you distinguish between the well known imaginings of human beings and these "non-material entities" if you cannot perceive them in the first place? So you're asking the question that I'm asking you.
"Can the 'non-material entities' interact with the material world in a way that is objectively detectable? If no, then you're asking how does one detect the undetectable. Precisely. That's my question to you. If you can't detect the undetectable, yet it is possible that we live in a world that has the undetectable, then sensory perception and the conceptualization that proceeds from it in the Objectivist view show itself to beg the question of its own naturalistic worldview. The questions are meant to show you what you apparently can't understand that you are doing when you reason as you do in your other comments.
In order for your methodology of inquiry to be true, you have to beg the question. Yet, begging the question is precisely what you claim to not be doing. Quite a conundrum, isn't it?
Hello B.C. Hodge. I've posted a reply to your question on my blog at
Deletehttp://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-reply-to-mr-bc-hodge.html
Many Thanks Best Wishes
B.C.:
ReplyDelete"By reason," as reason is based upon your worldview and conceptualizing via sensory perception, which you just admitted would not be possible in such a world.
I don't agree that reason is based on one particular worldview or another. I also don't agree with "conceptualizing via sensory perception." Conceptualizing goes beyond just sensory perception. I can conceive of a 30-foot pink bunny, yet I have had no sensory perception of such. Unless it was undetectable.
If you can't detect the undetectable, yet it is possible that we live in a world that has the undetectable, ...
Why is it possible that we live in a world that has the undetectable? Just because I can imagine such a world doesn't mean it exists in reality. Just because I cannot detect the undetectable, doesn't mean the undetectable exists. It also doesn't mean it doesn't exists, but it reduces its likelihood.
The burden of proof is on those who claim the undetectable exists. That isn't my problem.
"I don't agree that reason is based on one particular worldview or another. I also don't agree with "conceptualizing via sensory perception." Conceptualizing goes beyond just sensory perception. I can conceive of a 30-foot pink bunny, yet I have had no sensory perception of such. Unless it was undetectable."
ReplyDelete"Reason" isn't based upon one particular worldview. What you reason is.
I'm referring to conceptualization that seeks to make a distinction between reality and the imaginary, as it has been indicated here before. You don't believe in the undetectable bunny supposedly because of conceptualization rooted in sensory perception. That's clear from your argument. Hence, you do agree in practice. You just don't in theory.
"Why is it possible that we live in a world that has the undetectable?"
Because it's a possible world, as you yourself have conceded.
"Just because I can imagine such a world doesn't mean it exists in reality."
No one said it did. You're building a strawman.
"Just because I cannot detect the undetectable, doesn't mean the undetectable exists."
Again, I never said it did.
"It also doesn't mean it doesn't exists, but it reduces its likelihood."
That's your presupposed worldview showing. It is unlikely according to what? It's extremely likely in my worldview. It's not in yours and the methodology of inquiry that is limited by it.
"The burden of proof is on those who claim the undetectable exists."
Your worldview is undetectable and incapable of being confirmed. Hence, the burden of proof is on you as well as me. That's what you don't get. It is precisely your problem because it is all of our problems.
B.C.:
ReplyDeleteBecause it's a possible world, as you yourself have conceded.
Not true. I conceded: "I can imagine "non-material entities" just as easily as you do."
Though I'm not an objectivist, here my take:
ReplyDeleteCan you conceive of a possible world where there are non-material entities that cannot be perceived through sensory perception?
As far as imagining goes, I can imagine such a thing. Sure.
How exactly would you be capable of knowing that such a world is not the possible world you live in without presupposing a naturalistic worldview?
I already know that we live in one such reality. There's things other than matter. Among them, there's forms of energy that are not detectable through sensory perception. But I suspect that you had something different in mind when you wrote "non-material entities."
I'm guessing the only way out is to deny that one can conceive of a possible world where naturalism is untrue, but I cannot see how one would do this without defining everything through the lens of naturalism in the first place.
The only way out of what? I think that you need to define what you mean exactly by "non-material entities," because energy is not matter, yet it is physical. It would be a mistake, a mistake leading to equivocation, to just divide things into material and non-material. Otherwise we risk putting together the most bizarrely dissimilar things, like ghosts, gods, and spirits, with energy, plasma, and anti-matter, for example. So what did you mean and why should anybody worry about being able to reject such possibilities? After all, if it's imaginary, it remains imaginary. Therefore, I don't need to "know" that I don't live in such or such other reality filled with "whatever-you-mean-by-non-material-entities." My only job would be to wait until you could prove that your imaginary reality represents the one we live in.
You don't know if it's mere imagination or truth without begging the question. That's the point.
ReplyDelete"The only way out of what?"
The conundrum that all knowledge must be based upon sensory perception and the conceptualization that takes place from what is perceived, yet that very idea can only be confirmed if one has metaphysical knowledge that he cannot verify by such a process.
"I think that you need to define what you mean exactly by "non-material entities," because energy is not matter, yet it is physical. It would be a mistake, a mistake leading to equivocation, to just divide things into material and non-material. Otherwise we risk putting together the most bizarrely dissimilar things, like ghosts, gods, and spirits, with energy, plasma, and anti-matter, for example."
I've already defined these things in the conversations I've been having here. You're entering mid-conversation.
"So what did you mean and why should anybody worry about being able to reject such possibilities? After all, if it's imaginary, it remains imaginary."
You don't know whether it's imaginary. I was asking whether it is possible that such a world exists and how you know this isn't that world. To say that it is merely imaginary, then, is to beg the question that it is not that world without giving me any basis for concluding such.
"Therefore, I don't need to "know" that I don't live in such or such other reality filled with "whatever-you-mean-by-non-material-entities." My only job would be to wait until you could prove that your imaginary reality represents the one we live in."
Why would that be your only job? You just begged the question. You need empirical proof that you must verify through senses and reason when I just got done asking how you would verify things that cannot be detected in such a manner. What you don't seem to realize is that you already have concluded something about metaphysics without having any ability to verify whether those things are true. It isn't just a problem for theism, but atheism as well. You're assuming a naturalistic worldview as a default because, again, you're merely begging the question.
«You don't know if it's mere imagination or truth without begging the question. That's the point.»
DeleteThen it's a nonsensical point because by definition what's imaginary is imaginary. The question is whether such imaginary thing is worth considering as matching reality in some way or another. By very basic logic the answer is no. Check this: I can invite you to imagine all kinds of scenarios with undetectable "non-material" entities. That would not force you into therefore accepting that such scenarios might be the real deal. That you could not be able to "prove them wrong" does not validate them. The claimant should be able to validate them before they could even enter into the realm of the possible. Otherwise we invite all kinds of nonsense into the game. I'm not willing to buy into such nonsensical way of thinking, and telling me that because I can't test them out they are possible is forgetting that we know that such scenarios were imaginary from the very beginning, and that, because we know so, we don't need to consider them as corresponding (note the word: "corresponding," rather than "being") to some reality. Therefore the burden of proof remains on the claimant. not on the one being invited to consider some imaginary scenario. Clear enough? That's very far from begging the question. It's basic logical thought.
«I've already defined these things in the conversations I've been having here. You're entering mid-conversation.»
I know I entered midway, but the answers I see show that you have not defined what you meant. You made the entry questions generic rather than specific. That has a rhetorical purpose. Why would you want to keep what you mean that elusive, I can only guess. Maybe because the possible equivocations will keep this charade alive the longest(?).
«Why would that be your only job? You just begged the question.»
I didn't. If you invite me to imagine a scenario, I can agree to imagine it. That does not mean that such imaginings will become reality just because we can imagine them. If I asked you to consider a reality filled with layers upon layers of undetectable gods, where some gods sit top of us, then other hyper gods above them, and so on, you might be able to imagine such thing. Why should you suddenly have the burden of proving it wrong if I added conditions that preclude you from doing any evaluations? Wouldn't it be logical that in order for you to worry about it, I should be the one proving such situation to have a correspondence with reality?
It's not begging the question when you are invited to imagine. It's direct logic. I invite you to imagine something, that thing will be necessarily imaginary. Evaluating if what we imagine has a correspondence with reality is quite another thing, and the burden of proof necessarily falls into the claimant that such thing corresponds to reality. Imagining that there's some being who reveals such things to you does not solve anything. That you think it does means that, in order to believe as you do, a person has to be illogical when convenient for their beliefs.
Clear enough?
This reply is nonsensical. YOU defined it as imaginary, not me. My question is how you would know whether such is imaginary within the world you currently live. You would have to know what is real before you know what is imaginary and what is imaginary before what is real. It requires an omniscience that is impossible to you.
DeleteI merely asked whether such a world was possible. If all such worlds are imaginary, and therefore, are not possible, then your answer is that you cannot conceive of a POSSIBLE world where such things exist. Is that really your answer?
"The question is whether such imaginary thing is worth considering as matching reality in some way or another."
More utter drivel that assumes your worldview. "Worth considering" as measured by what? That's what you don't get.
"By very basic logic the answer is no."
By very basic logic the answer is yes. See, I can do that to. Making assertions isn't a replacement for argumentation. You're not measuring worth by logic. You're measuring it by your own worldview that begs the question.
"Check this: I can invite you to imagine all kinds of scenarios with undetectable "non-material" entities. That would not force you into therefore accepting that such scenarios might be the real deal. That you could not be able to "prove them wrong" does not validate them."
You don't understand what I was asking. I wasn't asking anyone to prove them wrong. I was asking how one would go about KNOWING that he lived in one universe versus the other. You're inability to prove those things wrong is a real problem for you, precisely, because you don't have the knowledge necessary to construct a verifiable metaphysic. You are left only with faith to do so.
"The claimant should be able to validate them before they could even enter into the realm of the possible. Otherwise we invite all kinds of nonsense into the game."
"Nonsense" according to what? Again, you have already invited nonsense to the game because your methodology of inquiry is self defeating. Inviting all sorts of nonsense to the game is the atheist's problem, not mine. I have revelation from God to distinguish reality from imaginary. You don't. You have only imagination and nothing else to guide you.
"I'm not willing to buy into such nonsensical way of thinking, and telling me that because I can't test them out they are possible is forgetting that we know that such scenarios were imaginary from the very beginning, and that, because we know so, we don't need to consider them as corresponding (note the word: "corresponding," rather than "being") to some reality."
You know this by assuming knowledge that cannot be tested in the first place, so you are, yet again, begging the question and using circular reasoning.
(cont.)
"Therefore the burden of proof remains on the claimant. not on the one being invited to consider some imaginary scenario. Clear enough? That's very far from begging the question. It's basic logical thought."
DeleteNo, you don't get it. You are the one making the claim. You are the one inviting others to your imaginary scenario where the universe you live in is not governed by God. You are the one with pure imagination. That's the basic logic you don't understand. We're all in that boat. You keep thinking your worldview is the default view. That's the problem. You ARE begging the question.
"I know I entered midway, but the answers I see show that you have not defined what you meant. You made the entry questions generic rather than specific. That has a rhetorical purpose. Why would you want to keep what you mean that elusive, I can only guess. Maybe because the possible equivocations will keep this charade alive the longest(?)."
Now you're speculating on my motives? Your imagination is great. I work in literature and assume people can read and pick up referents within a conversation. Apparently, after conversing with this group (which I can only paint as fundamentalist literalists), I need to reassess that assumption.
"I didn't. If you invite me to imagine a scenario, I can agree to imagine it. That does not mean that such imaginings will become reality just because we can imagine them. If I asked you to consider a reality filled with layers upon layers of undetectable gods, where some gods sit top of us, then other hyper gods above them, and so on, you might be able to imagine such thing. Why should you suddenly have the burden of proving it wrong if I added conditions that preclude you from doing any evaluations? Wouldn't it be logical that in order for you to worry about it, I should be the one proving such situation to have a correspondence with reality?"
You didn't understand what I was asking. I wasn't asking you to prove it wrong. I was asking how you would access the information needed to confirm or deny it without presupposing your own worldview first. And if would be a problem for me for you to propose a universe of layers and layers of gods, if I didn't have any revelation to go on, since I would have no way of knowing what kind of universe I lived in. I consider that to be a pretty important question.
"It's not begging the question when you are invited to imagine. It's direct logic. I invite you to imagine something, that thing will be necessarily imaginary. Evaluating if what we imagine has a correspondence with reality is quite another thing, and the burden of proof necessarily falls into the claimant that such thing corresponds to reality."
I didn't argue that it was necessarily imaginary, so you're creating a srawman and giving me a false analogy.
"Imagining that there's some being who reveals such things to you does not solve anything. That you think it does means that, in order to believe as you do, a person has to be illogical when convenient for their beliefs."
I don't imagine that there is some being who reveals such things. They were revealed to me and you. You can choose to believe that or not, but they are only imagined once you beg the question of your own worldview. So you are begging the question.
Clear enough?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi BC,
DeleteIt seems like it is you who keeps trying hard not to understand. You asked this:
«Can you conceive of a possible world where there are non-material entities that cannot be perceived through sensory perception?»
That's a clear invitation to imagine something. To "conceive" of some kind of reality that includes "non-material entities that cannot be perceived through sensory perception." Clearly, if you invite me to imagine I can do so. Again, I see no reason to worry about it having some possibility for having some correspondence with reality. It is not that I discount it out of "begging the question," but rather that I discount it until you can prove that such imaginary thing has a correspondence with reality. What's so hard to understand about this?
«(which I can only paint as fundamentalist literalists»
Well, here the thing. If we're not careful enough with the way we think, we can only invite nonsense. This is why I insist on making a clear distinction between being invited to imagine something, the very fact that if invited to imagine then what we imagine is therefore imaginary, and that if what you want is rather to make me worry about such imaginings having a correspondence with reality, then it is your burden of proof.
«You didn't understand what I was asking. I wasn't asking you to prove it wrong. I was asking how you would access the information needed to confirm or deny it without presupposing your own worldview first.»
And my answer was that I did not need to access anything to confirm or deny it. I answered that the burden of proof remains on the claimant, and that in the meantime I don't have any need to worry about it.
«And if would be a problem for me for you to propose a universe of layers and layers of gods, if I didn't have any revelation to go on»
So you are free to "beg the question" when it comes to scenarios you don't like, but I am not free to wait until you prove that what you imagine corresponds in some way to reality? As I said, it seems like you forget logic when convenient to you. Have you heard about special pleading?
«I don't imagine that there is some being who reveals such things. They were revealed to me and you.»
I'm sorry, but this is preposterous nonsense. I don't need to beg the question of my worldview in order to know that I have had no such revelations. I haven't therefore I haven't. Would it make sense to you if I just claimed that you know that your god is mere nonsense, that you might choose to "believe that or not," but that my claim is only imaginary once you beg the question of your worldview? Is your worldview really that much nonsensical? if so you can keep it. I rather stay away. I have too much self-respect.
You're focusing on a particular meaning of the word "conceive" and inferring that I'm asking one to imagine a world where this is true, all the while ignoring that I was asking whether one could conceive a POSSIBLE world in which this is the case. In other words, Is it possible that such and such is the case and how would you go about knowing whether it is or not without assuming the answer in your methodology of inquiry?
Delete"It is not that I discount it out of "begging the question," but rather that I discount it until you can prove that such imaginary thing has a correspondence with reality. What's so hard to understand about this?"
LOL. I don't know what's so hard to understand about my question, but you surely don't. Let me know how I would go about proving it and I'll show you how you're begging the question. In fact, the question begging is going on in the very challenge to "prove" it. I have revelation from God that it's true. What do you have that it isn't?
"If we're not careful enough with the way we think, we can only invite nonsense. This is why I insist on making a clear distinction between being invited to imagine something, the very fact that if invited to imagine what we imagine is therefore imaginary, and that if what you want is rather to make me worry about such imaginings having a correspondence with reality, then it is your burden of proof."
I've already addressed this. You're imagining your reality, so where is your proof that your reality is true? If the burden of proof is on he who imagines his reality then it is on you, My Friend. Why don't you get that? Because you assume your worldview and beg the question by treating that worldview as some sort of default position concerning metaphysics.
"So you are free to "beg the question" when it comes to scenarios you don't like, but I am not free to wait until you prove that what you imaginings corresponds in some way to reality? As I said, it seems like you forget logic when convenient to you. Special pleading anyone?"
Ditto. You have imagined the scenario that we live in a naturalistic world. Hence, I am not obligated to wait until you prove that your imagining corresponds in some way to reality. It seems like YOU conveniently forget logic because you continue to beg the question and not even realize that you are doing so.
"I'm sorry, but this is preposterous nonsense. I don't need to beg the question of my worldview in order to know that I have had no such revelations."
Hahaha. This is why this conversation is so funny. Yes, YOU DO have to beg your worldview. My worldview is that God has given revelation to all people in creation, conscience, and in the Bible. You have to beg your own worldview to reject mine and say that He has not. This is truly getting comical.
"Would it make sense to you if I just claimed that you know that your god is mere nonsense, that you might choose to "believe that or not," but that my claim is only imaginary once you beg the question of your worldview?"
Yes, it would make sense, because that is exactly what you're negating my worldview with, i.e., your own worldview. Hence, that is exactly what you have been saying to me. You just don't go back far enough in what you argue to realize that this is what you are assuming.
"Is your worldview really that much nonsensical? if so you can keep it. I rather stay away. I have too much self-respect."
Your heightened rhetoric that seeks to utilize ad hominem (i.e., only those who lack self respect hold your view, etc.) evidences that you don't have a real argument to make. So please do stay away until you can get one.
B.C.:
ReplyDeleteThe conundrum that all knowledge must be based upon sensory perception and the conceptualization that takes place from what is perceived, yet that very idea can only be confirmed if one has metaphysical knowledge that he cannot verify by such a process.
The real conundrum is how to verify objective knowledge with a subjective metaphysic.
If you think that, it can only be because you didn't understand my argument, or my worldview. So the real problem is how to verify objective knowledge with an objective metaphysic when you do not have the ability to detect elements that may be undetectable. You need revelation from a being that can do that. Welcome to Christianity. Take off your atheist shoes at the door.
DeleteHi BC,
Delete«So the real problem is how to verify objective knowledge with an objective metaphysic when you do not have the ability to detect elements that may be undetectable»
That's only a problem if you lack the most basic understanding of logical thought. It is evident that we can imagine many things. Therefore, in order to consider that such things have a correspondence with reality the claimant has the burden of proof. Again, otherwise we invite too much nonsense into consideration. Who has the time and the lack of sense to do such a thing?
«You need revelation from a being that can do that.»
I would think that you need much more than "revelation." You need to be able to verify that such being exists, that such being would not lie to you, that what you call revelation is not just your imagination (or somebody else's imagination), and a very long etc. You are making things much worse. You are inviting people inclined to logical thought to imagine one thing on top of another and then another, and then to worry that such layers upon layers of imaginary stories might be the real thing. Not looking very good so far.
«Welcome to Christianity. Take off your atheist shoes at the door.»
No thanks, if that's Christianity I rather stay out of such nonsensical way of thinking. Sorry.
"That's only a problem if you lack the most basic understanding of logical thought. It is evident that we can imagine many things. Therefore, in order to consider that such things have a correspondence with reality the claimant has the burden of proof. Again, otherwise we invite too much nonsense into consideration. Who has the time and the lack of sense to do such a thing?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it's only a problem if you don't have the necessary information to make a logical argument about what exists and what does not. That's precisely your problem. Again, you just assume the default position is your own worldview. In my worldview, your worldview is an imaginary fantasy made up to support your own sinfully desired autonomy. I know that via divine revelation. How do you know that your logic is functioning from the right worldview? You can assert that one must prove that his theory accords with reality, but that is just an assertion. You have no way of knowing what reality is in order to verify that such a theory accords with it. That's why you have to beg the question concerning your metaphysic and epistemology in the first place.
"I would think that you need much more than "revelation." You need to be able to verify that such being exists, that such being would not lie to you, that what you call revelation is not just your imagination (or somebody else's imagination), and a very long etc. You are making things much worse."
Only in your system. That's the problem. These are, in fact, all of your problems. You can verify none of this. Hence, neither can I, so I don't argue that I have. Only your system works on empirical and rational verificationism. Mine does not. I believe knowledge is acquired by believing a report, and is thus based on faith in what has been revealed. The need to verify, because man is at center of his own knowledge, being completely reliant upon his own devices, and yet, completely incapable of doing so, is your conundrum, not mine.
Hey BC,
DeleteIf anything I have to thank you for engaging this far.
«No, it's only a problem if you don't have the necessary information to make a logical argument about what exists and what does not. That's precisely your problem.»
Nope. I have no problem whatsoever about deciding what is real and what is not. I decide so when it's possible. If you propose, again, an imaginary scenario, I am happy not to worry about it until you have proof. That's not, again, begging the question of my worldview as the default. That's a reasonable proposition. Otherwise it all ends up in such nonsense as first imagining that scenario, then imagining that there's some being, then that such being gives you revelations, then imagining such revelations, then that such revelations are real, and a bunch more of imaginary stuff. That's why I insist on making proper distinctions, like that between what is real and what is imaginary from the beginning. Therefore I indeed have a logical argument to reject the very idea of worrying about imaginary scenarios and leaving them for the claimant to prove. It's quite simple, rational, and logical. Yet you seem rather refractory to understanding any of it. I can only blame it on your worldview, which requires people to leave aside reality and invite imaginings after imaginings and pose them as realities even after such self-damning claims as:
«You can verify none of this. Hence, neither can I, so I don't argue that I have.»
Since you can't argue that you have you have nothing but your belief, and therefore I have no reason to consider your worldview as anything close to a possibility.
«The need to verify, because man is at center of his own knowledge, being completely reliant upon his own devices, and yet, completely incapable of doing so, is your conundrum, not mine.»
Well, after your confession, I see no reason to think that what you imagine reality to be has any merit, and thus I can't understand how you think that you have any right to make any claims about what I would be able to do left to my own devices or not.
In your own worldview, as you confessed, you are left to your own devices, but you find consolation from a conundrum, that is in your imagination too, in just believing that some being gives you a revelation. That's at a level of nonsensical that truly I see no way out for you, when all this time you have thought that it is us who have some problem or another. Talk about conundrums! As Dawson would say: I'm so glad these aren't my problems!
You are convincing me that Christianity's defence consists on imagining a problem with being "left to your own devices," and then offers the imaginary solution called Christianity, thus selling you both the venom and the antidote to keep you at it with no possible way out. I rather not take the venom in the first place.
Be well, I say good bye for now. Thanks for the semi-conversation.
*by believing a report, as well as using empiricism and reason that is based upon it.
ReplyDelete"Nope. I have no problem whatsoever about deciding what is real and what is not. I decide so when it's possible."
ReplyDeleteIt's never possible without assuming a worldview.
"If you propose, again, an imaginary scenario, I am happy not to worry about it until you have proof. That's not, again, begging the question of my worldview as the default. That's a reasonable proposition. Otherwise it all ends up in such nonsense as first imagining that scenario, then imagining that there's some being, then that such being gives you revelations, then imagining such revelations, then that such revelations are real, and a bunch more of imaginary stuff."
You can only conclude that it is imaginary once you conclude what is real. That's why you need to beg the question and assume that it's just good ol' logic. It isn't. It's logic based upon your presupposed view of reality. Hence, you acknowledge only those things that make sense within that worldview, and judge what is imaginary and what is real in terms of whether it accords with that worldview.
"That's why I insist on making proper distinctions, like that between what is real and what is imaginary from the beginning. Therefore I indeed have a logical argument to reject the very idea of worrying about imaginary scenarios and leaving them for the claimant to prove. It's quite simple, rational, and logical. Yet you seem rather refractory to understanding any of it. I can only blame it on your worldview, which requires people to leave aside reality and invite imaginings after imaginings and pose them as realities even after such self-damning claims"
Then you need to reject your own worldview and the methodology of inquiry you think you're employing objectively via an evidential and rational process. Your view is nothing but imagination. Look at how you have to assume that reality accords with what you believe it is as opposed to everyone else who disagrees with that view as holding an imaginary system. The lack of self awareness is astounding. I can only attribute it to a blind faith in a lifetime of cultural indoctrination that seeks for a self destructive autonomy.
"Since you can't argue that you have you have nothing but your belief, and therefore I have no reason to consider your worldview as anything close to a possibility."
1. I didn't say I had nothing but belief. I said I start there, which is precisely what you do. The differences are (a) that you start with a belief and then deny that you do, and (b) your belief is in a world that is completely and utterly made up. You have no way of knowing if your view is true, and thus, you must blindly hold to it with nothing but faith and faith alone.
2. "I see no reason to think that what you imagine reality to be has any merit, and thus I can't understand how you think that you have any right to make any claims about what I would be able to do left to my own devices or not."
You see no REASON, according to your presupposed worldview that dictates everything else you believe, and excludes any possibility of true reality to begin with, to think I have any right to make claims concerning what you are capable of doing?
1. Your reasons are based upon your irrational worldview that has not grounding in anything but imagination.
2. This is a non sequitur. If my faith is rightly placed, I have every right to make claims to point out your delusions that are self defeating claims to know something via a logic that must presuppose what you supposedly are trying to justify with it in the first place.
«If my faith is rightly placed»
DeleteBut you admitted that you don't know if it's rightly placed, you just have faith that it is. Here's what you said again:
«You can verify none of this. Hence, neither can I, so I don't argue that I have.»
Therefore you have no right whatsoever to make any claims about mine. Let alone after showing with such vehemence that you will never try and understand what my worldview is really about. All you will ever consider is your cartoon, what you imagine my worldview to be. That's what happens when imagination is conflated so easily with reality. It is just amazing that you don't consider it logical and sensical to start with what we do know. Well, then Christianity has nothing to offer but fantasy and deception.
Yeah, just to, again, make one final observation. I do start with what we know. What we know is at the very heart of the question, so when you assume that you know what reality is, and it's reality according to your make-believe system, it's going to conflict with mine, which is reality known because I have a God who has communicated that to man. Hence, I don't need to confirm it, as though I am a god and center of all judgment concerning knowledge. I just trust that God knows and has spoken. My system is consistent. Yours is not. If there is any confirmation, it stems from that alone.
DeleteBut make no mistake about it, you are simply begging the question to make your argument concerning what we "know." That is the very point of dispute, so you can't just argue that you already do know reality and then argue against my worldview from there.
OK, I'm out.
BC,
DeleteIt's lots of fun seeing that you just "trust" "God", but in reality the most you can demonstrate is that you trust something you can't verify, and therefore it is yours that's a make-believe system.
I never claimed to know everything. I never claimed needing to know everything. Those needs, fulfilled in your fantasyland, and therefore not truly fulfilled, are your problem, not mine. I don;t need to know every aspect of reality. You think I do, but that's your problem, not mine. I accept things the way they are. You insist on calling my worldview into what yours truly is, while admitting that you can't confirm yours, that you "trust" that fantasy character, but you can prove to anybody that such character is anything else but something you are imagining. In the meantime, irony of ironies, you try and give me your problems. No thanks. I'm all right the way I am. I don't need your fantasies or your problems. I don't need to be your mirror.
You are really not paying any attention, neither to what I write, nor to what you say. Your system is a mental parasite. You invent needs and world views that you project into people like me, then claim that those imaginary problems are really mine, but that your worldview "solves them" by "trusting" something you admit to be unable to prove! And then you say my worldview is a make-believe one! Come on! No matter how immersed in your fantasyland you could be, you have to understand what that looks like from a rational point of view!
Truly man. Try harder. Stop pretending to know what I think, ask about it instead. Stop pretending that because you imagine that your fantasies solve problems therefore both the problems and the fantasies are real. Man that's classic lemon-car salesman strategy. They make you believe that it's a problem for you not having such and such car, and then they tell you that they have the car! You buy something you did not need in the first place. That's your Christianity. You invent a problem with my worldview that is not there. You invent a solution you can;t verify to exist, then you imagine that because you "trust" such imaginary solution, therefore the solution is real and that it solves the problem and that such imaginary solution helps you be beyond your own devices. Do you see your circle and nonsense at all? The imaginary solution is in your imagination in the first place! Your imagination is your own device! Your "trust" in that imaginary solution is your own device too! Have some minimal sense BC. Please for self-respect sake. With that horrid conundrum, you truly have no right to pretend to know what my worldview allows or not, let alone to judge it. Even less if all you know about my worldview is what you believe it to be, rather than what it really is.
Is being a Christian truly that nonsensical?
«But make no mistake about it, you are simply begging the question to make your argument concerning what we "know."»
DeleteIn order to be able to claim that I am begging the question you would have to know what my worldview is, and so far you have not attempted to understand any of that at all.
«That is the very point of dispute,»
How could it be in dispute that imaginary scenarios are imaginary? That's true by definition, therefore does not need arguing, therefore does not beg the question. It would be begging the question if you could dispute that imaginary stuff is imaginary stuff. Doing so would be nonsensical. No need for arguing the obvious. It's like disputing if circles are circles. I say, yes, circles are circles, then you say aha! you are begging the question! No, I am not, I am just making a statement of the obvious.
What else could be in dispute? Whether your non-material entities are real? If so, the burden of proof is all yours. You're welcome to try and prove them. In the meantime I see no reason to worry about it. There's plenty of imaginary scenarios out there, plus all the ones we could imagine. Thus worrying about that is nonsense. Most importantly because we know how imaginative we humans can be.
«so you can't just argue that you already do know reality and then argue against my worldview from there.»
I don't argue that I already "know reality." I argue that there's parts of reality we can agree about. At least if we are both rational. I reject the idea of worrying about imaginary scenarios for obvious reasons (explained to exhaustion already). If that makes my "worldview" into the default position, it's just a consequence of my worldview being rational. Not my fault that your's isn't.
"In your own worldview, as you confessed, you are left to your own devices, but you find consolation from a conundrum, that is in your imagination too, in just believing that some being gives you a revelation."
ReplyDeleteNope, nice try. I just said that I am dependent upon God, not myself. God must choose to reveal Himself and direct the individual to understand what is revealed. He even directs my reason and what it is that I can come to know, so that it is not my imagination but God's revelation that directs me. I am not left to myself unless God leaves me to myself. That is the atheist problem, not mine. So this is, and evermore shall be, your problem, and your problem alone. Good effort though to try to switch hat with me. It just doesn't work in my system, since my system is the true one and is not self defeating like all of the false systems out there that have turned reality into fantasy, such as yours.
"You are convincing me that Christianity's defence consists on imagining a problem with being "left to your own devices," and then offers the imaginary solution called Christianity, thus selling you both the venom and the antidote to keep you at it with no possible way out. I rather not take the venom in the first place."
Unfortunately, what you don't get is that the poison is your own. That was my original issue. The claims you wish to make are self defeating. There is no way out of them except to either deny the possibility of such a world or to just say that you don't have to justify your beliefs and methodology (both of which you have used here). Yet, in all of this, you don't see that your arguments are to no effect unless you get someone to agree with your assumed premises that beg your worldview. Well, if you accept the premises of my worldview, I can prove mine pretty quickly as well. LOL. No thanks. I'm not giving up to you ground just because you think it's the "common sense" and "basic logical" thing to do. Thanks anyway.
OK, well, that was fun and all, but I need to get some books and articles read and written, so I need to be done with this convo. I think that the case speaks for itself. Feel free to leave whatever comments you wish, and I would just ask that everyone reading attempt to find the hidden premises in whatever is being said. That's better than just having me go round and round with every atheist who wants to comment. The last word belongs to all of you (for now).
ReplyDeleteWhat an epic conversation... I've learnt a lot!
ReplyDeleteB. C. Hodge wrote: "I have revelation from God to distinguish reality from imaginary"
ReplyDeleteDid he reveal to you how to distinguish Himself from the imaginary, so that you can trust his revelation is real and not imaginary as well?
B. C. Hodge wrote: "You are the one making the claim"
What claim? That there must be a reliable way to distinguish the conceivable, the supposedly undetectable and the inmaterial, from the the imaginary? Now, how do presuppositionalists go about this distinction?
B. C. Hodge wrote: "You are the one inviting others to your imaginary scenario where the universe you live in is not governed by God.
Am deluded just because I entertain the possibility that you might be confusing reality and imagination and ask how you distinguish the two? Could it be you are confusing yourself with the omniscient God you imagine?
B. C. Hodge wrote: "I do start with what we know."
We? You start with what YOU, for some mysterious reason, think to know and we don't agree because you don't tell us how you know that you know.
We, objectivists start with what WE (objectivists and mystics) know, because you and us can agree that the detectable, at least, is real. You start with what only YOU (us excluded) know (or think you know). We might not believe everything you say is true, but we don't presuppose the existence of things you can't detect.
The only people presupposing and assuming a worldview are you, while trying to level the debate at a low level by accusing us of the same crime.
This from David Kelley:
ReplyDelete“We do not begin as knowers with beliefs whose truth we must posit, without warrant, before we can develop standards for the reliability of belief-forming processes. We begin with the direct perceptual awareness of objects and their attributes; we notice similarities that allow us to form and apply concepts; and we are implicitly aware of the ontological facts that the principles of logic identify. Since we are capable of grasping facts, we are in a position to recognize errors when they occur, and thus recognize the fact of our fallibility. Since we are capable of identifying the nature of things in the world, we are capable of identifying the nature of our own faculties as things in the world, and of learning how to minimize the dangers of their malfunctioning. At each stage, from perception to concepts to the rules of evidence to the rules of justification, our conclusions are fully grounded in and justified by what came before. We cannot go back psychologically, taking with us only our epistemological principles, and actually relearn everything anew. But we can look back epistemologically, using the principles we have learned, and evaluate the whole structure of knowledge in a fully normative and noncircular way.” (Evidence and Justification. p. 17; http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/Evidence_and_Justification_0.pdf)
Ydemoc
PhotoZero,
ReplyDeleteRandians just cant seem to get around their claim that they perceive reality. But it's pretty funny to see you and bc have a whole convo about who's imagining stuff.
Thanks for the laughs.
Hey Hezek/Nide/whatever,
DeleteI don't need to claim that I perceive reality. Doubts about it belong to your worldview, not mine. Mine starts with reason, while your first sell yourself the idea that the very reality you live in might as well be imaginary, then that your imaginary friend solves the problem and assures you that reality is real. You might not see the nonsense and ridiculous circularity of a worldview, such as yours, where an imaginary character assures you that the very same reality you were already living is real, a reality you needed before you could even doubt it, before you could even attempt to imagine such character. But, well, that's entirely your problem. Not mine.
Ciao
DN:
DeleteRandians just cant seem to get around their claim that they perceive reality.
Not true. What we perceive is real. I cannot perceive Paris, but that doesn't mean I believe it isn't real.
PhotoReason,
ReplyDeleteHilarious.
NAL and photo,
DeleteRegarding DawsonsNightmare/Richard/Hezekiah/r_c321/Nide (et al.),
"...his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes — deaf, because he has ears — deluded, because he has a mind — and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 30, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html)
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
ReplyDeleteHilarious.