Preconditional Worldview

[Sparhafoc]

[quote="name of person you are replying to"]text you want to quote[/quote]

Which if you typed in exactly as above, would be printed via the forum software as:

text you want to quote

 

[leroy]

Which is obviously not what we're talking about here. We're talking about beliefs, opinions, and actions, not knowledge. However, you cannot honestly and ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you know it, and if you can't confirm your accuracy to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then you can't even know IF you know it.

Yes, that is verificationism,

Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition

Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

Yes you promote that view.


It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.

of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.

No I don't. I don't hold the view you described; I hold the view that I described, which is importantly different. I'm saying you shouldn't believe without good reason.

That is a completely different view, “good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.

you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)

To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yes, that is verificationism,

No. You're wrong.

Liar or stupid.

I vote liar because it's your typical guff.

Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition

No. You're wrong.

No context regarding cognitive meaning, so you're talking out of your butt.

Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

No. You're wrong.

Your wikipedia source doesn't say it was 'falsified' - you need to learn what words mean before hanging so much bullshit on them.

Yes you promote that view.

No. You're wrong.

See how quickly LEROY goes from 'let's wait and hear what Aron Ra says' to telling Aron Ra what he says.

It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.

No. You're wrong.

Nothing to do with verificationism, as I already educated you.

An actual example is the linguistic idea floated by Chomsky: colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

The sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct, but it conveys no cognitive meaning.

Verificationism says that only statements that are empirically verified can have cognitive meaning, ergo you are making up bullshit as usual and refusing to amend your assertions when shown wrong, as usual.

No one here has espoused this position, so why are you lying to peoples' faces?

of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic...

No you can't.

I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.

No it isn't, not least because 'God' is a particular entity, rather than a class of entities, and it's no more reasonable to believe in that one than in any of the other ones. You're dramatically overselling your competence, as usual.

That is a completely different view, “good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.

No. You're wrong.

Aron Ra told you that he is not an 'old school rationalist' because, a hundred years ago, rationalism and empiricism were contradictory positions.

Pro tip: they're not today, so perhaps you should learn what you are talking about before professing to have a clue.

you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)

No. You're wrong.

That's not verificationism, as you've been educated.

To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

No. You're wrong.

1) That's not verificationism.

2) You're such a clown pretending that you have any association with scholars.

3) Verificationism, as per the solitary source you keep quoting - Wikipedia - is expressly about statements needing to be cognitively meaningful, and yet at no point have you acknowledged this even though it's in the first sentence of that single source.

You're a clown, LEROY. A lying clown.

 

[Sparhafoc]

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_verificationism.html

Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false

Verifiability Criterion of Meaning.

But of course, LEROY repeatedly elides the whole fucking point of verificationism - the 'meaning' part, the 'semantic' part, the 'cognitive' sense part.

This is why LEROY is well known here as a liar.

 

[AronRa]

I come here with the desire to see people come to a saving knowledge of God and I get mocked.

You don't have knowledge of God. You come here pretending to know things you don't know, claiming facts that are not facts in defense of an imaginary alternate reality with no truth to it. You make-believe things that are not true for reasons that are not sane. You're delusional. Studies have shown that this type belief system has negative peripheral effects on other aspects of cognition and psyche. Once you wake up and walk away from that you will be a more tolerant and inquisitive and all around better person, and you'll stop lying all the time. So we're saving you. You can't save anyone. Your god is not real. You have no defense, and that is obvious to every thinking person reading this or watching our live discussion.

 

[leroy]

Yes, that is verificationism,

No. You're wrong.

Liar or stupid.

I vote liar because it's your typical guff.

Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition

No. You're wrong.

No context regarding cognitive meaning, so you're talking out of your butt.

Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

No. You're wrong.

Your wikipedia source doesn't say it was 'falsified' - you need to learn what words mean before hanging so much bullshit on them.

Yes you promote that view.

No. You're wrong.

See how quickly LEROY goes from 'let's wait and hear what Aron Ra says' to telling Aron Ra what he says.

It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.

No. You're wrong.

Nothing to do with verificationism, as I already educated you.

An actual example is the linguistic idea floated by Chomsky: colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

The sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct, but it conveys no cognitive meaning.

Verificationism says that only statements that are empirically verified can have cognitive meaning, ergo you are making up bullshit as usual and refusing to amend your assertions when shown wrong, as usual.

No one here has espoused this position, so why are you lying to peoples' faces?

of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic...

No you can't.

I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.

No it isn't, not least because 'God' is a particular entity, rather than a class of entities, and it's no more reasonable to believe in that one than in any of the other ones. You're dramatically overselling your competence, as usual.

That is a completely different view, “good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.

No. You're wrong.

Aron Ra told you that he is not an 'old school rationalist' because, a hundred years ago, rationalism and empiricism were contradictory positions.

Pro tip: they're not today, so perhaps you should learn what you are talking about before professing to have a clue.

you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)

No. You're wrong.

That's not verificationism, as you've been educated.

To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

No. You're wrong.

1) That's not verificationism.

2) You're such a clown pretending that you have any association with scholars.

3) Verificationism, as per the solitary source you keep quoting - Wikipedia - is expressly about statements needing to be cognitively meaningful, and yet at no point have you acknowledged this even though it's in the first sentence of that single source.

You're a clown, LEROY. A lying clown.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.




Just for the record, I am suggesting that all 3 are the same, a view that states that only things that can be proven empirically or logically can be affirmed as true in any meaningful way,

 

[Sparhafoc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.

So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?

Just for the record, I am suggesting that all 3 are the same, a view that states that only things that can be proven empirically or logically can be affirmed as true in any meaningful way,

Yes, it's called blagging, or talking out of your rectum - it's about the only thing in which you possess any degree of competence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Theism, also known as animism, has been shown false and no serious scholars believe that there are spirits in inanimate objects, therefore Christianity is dead.

I bet even you - with utterly pathetic levels of comprehension - can spot the flawed reasoning here.

Shame it's exactly the argument you're basing your entire bollock thrust on.

 

[leroy]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.

So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?

Just for the record, I am suggesting that all 3 are the same, a view that states that only things that can be proven empirically or logically can be affirmed as true in any meaningful way,

Yes, it's called blagging, or talking out of your rectum - it's about the only thing in which you possess any degree of competence.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again Sparhafoc ran from a challenge with lies and insults

 

[leroy]

Theism, also known as animism, has been shown false and no serious scholars believe that there are spirits in inanimate objects, therefore Christianity is dead.

I bet even you - with utterly pathetic levels of comprehension - can spot the flawed reasoning here.

Shame it's exactly the argument you're basing your entire bollock thrust on.

aja, so please...

explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

 

[AronRa]

Which is obviously not what we're talking about here. We're talking about beliefs, opinions, and actions, not knowledge. However, you cannot honestly and ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you know it, and if you can't confirm your accuracy to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then you can't even know IF you know it.

Yes, that is verificationism,

No it isn't, because we're talking about justification of belief, not cognitive meaning of knowledge.

Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition

No it isn't.

Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

No it hasn't.

Yes you promote that view.

No I don't.

It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.

Then you don't really know it. But matters like this is why positive claims require positive evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one cares if you're lying about your coffee. So it doesn't matter if you forgot about that third cup and don't remember everything accurately.

of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic

No you can't.

I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.

That would be foolish. Remember that everywhere except the Bible and the Qur'an, a fool is one who too readily believes improbable claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence.

No I don't. I don't hold the view you described; I hold the view that I described, which is importantly different. I'm saying you shouldn't believe without good reason.

That is a completely different view,

Yeah, we've been trying to tell you that.

“good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.

That's a contradiction. The truth is what the facts are. If you can't show that what you said is true, you can't call it truth. You have to show the truth of it first.

you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)

Again, verificationism is about cognitive meaning. We're talking about the ethics of making unstable assertions that can't be evaluated in science. People may accept claims for whatever reason, but the person making the claim has a responsibility to show that what is said is verifiable correct. Empty assertions like "I KNOW for a FACT that's the gospel TRUTH" are only empty assertions without evidence and logical reasoning to back them up.

To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)

Most scholars clearly do not agree with you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Amazing! The creator of everything, and without which, we would not be able to use reason has beamed special knowledge into joshua040103's head, yet cannot also give him the knowledge to master the quote function.

I'm sorry, I wasn't quoting anyone. I am new to forums. Typically I engage atheists on Facebook.

Well, if you would like to know how to do something, usually it is better to ask someone. That would require you to admit that others can be right without accepting your god though.

Interesting how you live up to being the stereotypical atheist in that you're never beyond personally insulting people who don't hold to the same beliefs you do.

Oh, I insult whoever I see fit, regardless of their belief (or lack there of) in a god. Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they are right about anything else that they hold true.

Your persistence of inserting yourself into discussions that are irrelevant to you or your input speaks volumes to your need for self validation.

I will never understand this whining about people commenting on a thread in a public forum. Do you whine like this on Facebook? It would not surprise me, since this post does seem like a script you are just copy/pasting.

It's likely you can't hardly get through a 24 hour period without stroking your ego at least once.

True, but I know people on this forum will knock me in my place if I am wrong about anything I post. Keeping the ego in check.

It's sad really.

Why?

I come here with the desire to see people come to a saving knowledge of God and I get mocked.

Poor baby. Perhaps you would feel better in a safe space?

You come here with nothing to offer but ad hominems and no concern for anyone or anything other than your ego.

First, I am not committing the ad hominem fallacy, I was simply insulting you. This seems to be more evidence that you have no real understanding of logical fallacies.

Second, since you are a Presuppositional Apologist, you actually came here to offer nothing.

Just remember, that on atheism none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

True, and?

You're a mere byproduct of random chance over time and eventually, maybe even this very day, your heart will stop, and you will slowly rot away into nothing.

The fear of death gambit is at play. I wonder, do you honestly believe this works on adults?

On your worldview, this is as good as it gets.

Actually no. Seeing as how I am a Humanist, I actually want to see the world get better with every passing day.

So why you bother at all with discussion over these topics speaks to the dialectical tensions which exist within the philosophical framework of your worldview.

Why I bother is because I enjoy having educational discussions. I also care about accepting reality as it is, unlike you apparently.

If you're rearranged pondscum, who cares about what anyone else believes?

I am not rearranged pondscum. However, nice insult after earlier whining about being insulted.

You certainly shouldn't.

Seeing as how you believe to know my mind better than I do, tell me why I should not?

I think I'm done casting pearls before swine. If you would like to have a one on one discussion with me, and you're on Facebook, here's a link to my page.

There is a guide somewhere. I don't have the time to find it right this second but someone might point him to it.

Seeing as how joshua040103 already came back after refusing to cast his pearls before us, here it is. One has to wonder why his all-knowing friend could not just beam this knowledge into his head. That should tell you something about his position.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.

So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?

I do love it when someone issues a challenge that was already met a few posts above their challenge.

 

[leroy]

[The truth is what the facts are. If you can't show that what you said is true, you can't call it truth. You have to show the truth of it first.

Whether if you what to call it verificationism or not is irrelevant, it is still a fact that this view has been falsified and largely abandoned by scholars for the reasons explained in the source that I provided.

As I said before it is possible to know something even if you can’t show it to be true,

of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic

No you can't.

sure I can, one can for example:

1 Show empirically and with logic that the universe (all space time and everything in it) probably had a beginning

2 Show with logic that probably a beginning necessarily requires a cause

3 show with logic that the cause necessarily had to be timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal.

As long as you grant that 1,2 and 3 are probably true you are granting that a timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal entity probably exists, and of course this entity would be something that everybody would call “a god”


With probably in this context I simply mean without 100% certainty, but with a high degree of certainty

 

[AronRa]

[The truth is what the facts are. If you can't show that what you said is true, you can't call it truth. You have to show the truth of it first.

Whether if you what to call it verificationism or not is irrelevant, it is still a fact that this view has been falsified and largely abandoned by scholars for the reasons explained in the source that I provided.

Except that I don't call it verificationism because that's not what it is.

As I said before it is possible to know something even if you can’t show it to be true,

Literally not true for the reasons I have already explained. If you're going to argue with someone over the matter, your memory of the events will be insufficient to counter any evidence at all against you.

Of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic

No you can't.

sure I can, one can for example:

1 Show empirically and with logic that the universe (all space time and everything in it) probably had a beginning

2 Show with logic that probably a beginning necessarily requires a cause

3 show with logic that the cause necessarily had to be timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal.

As long as you grant that 1,2 and 3 are probably true you are granting that a timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal entity probably exists, and of course this entity would be something that everybody would call “a god”

With probably in this context I simply mean without 100% certainty, but with a high degree of certainty

Then you fail on all points.

1. Even if the cosmic expansion had a beginning, there is the possibility that it is 4th dimensional substance inflating 3-dimensional space through a rift in the time-space continuum: meaning that the matter/energy already existed. Super-massive gravity can slow down time. So a singularity of all the mass in the universe would slow down time like an asymptote on a Cartesian coordinate system. So that as we track backward in time to the point of the big bang, time would slow down until one second equals infinity when T = zero. Thus the universe would still be eternal even if its inflation had a beginning.

2. The cause of that rift has been suggested as the collision of super-cosmic membranes according to M-theory, though it could be many other things, and cannot be a magic immortal ape-descendant who existed before the evolution of apes.

3. None of this has to be spaceless, timeless or immaterial, and none of it is remotely personal either. So no one would even call it an entity, much less a god.

 

[Sparhafoc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again Sparhafoc ran from a challenge with lies and insults

You're such a lying clown, LEROY.

I've pointed out your bullshit each post, everyone can see you wiggling and squirming to avoid admitting your mistake. This is because it's not a simple mistake, but lying bullshit on your part.

Your own source contradicts you.

Who do you think you're fooling? You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

 

[Sparhafoc]

aja, so please...

explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

Typical LEROY.

I have done so in every post replying to you in this thread.

Who exactly do you think you're fooling?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I do love it when someone issues a challenge that was already met a few posts above their challenge.

And here earlier...

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183874#p183874

And here even earlier...

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183858#p183858

And hold on... the very first post in which I replied to LEROY's first post in this thread

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183847#p183847

Oh, and in fact in every post replying to LEROY in this thread... but of course, Lying LEROY thinks he can pretend that I haven't already publicly educated him about his 'error', and that other people here would be stupid and naive enough to fall for LEROY's typical lies.

It never ceases to bemuse me exactly who it is LEROY thinks he's fooling.

 

[Sparhafoc]

of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic

I haz assertion!

sure I can, one can for example:

1 Show empirically and with logic that the universe (all space time and everything in it) probably had a beginning

2 Show with logic that probably a beginning necessarily requires a cause

3 show with logic that the cause necessarily had to be timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal.

And yet, every time LEROY has supposedly performed these tricks on this forum, he's somehow forgotten how to use logic, and all his arguments boil down to a faith requirement.

The only way in which LEROY can shown these empiricially is by writing it as an assertion and then saying "Look, there it is! My sentence exists! (He has actually tried this once), or by perverting syntax to such a degree that logic simply weeps in despair and abandons the post on the soonest train.

LEROY's ability never matches his claims about what amazing feat he could, if he chose, pull off. In fact, each and every one of LEROY's beliefs never turns out so well when he has to formulate them to a skeptical audience. I guess they sound so good in his head that his own beliefs absolutely convince him beyond any doubt. What a shame it must be to be so confident internally, and so incompetent expressing those ideas to the world.

 

[Steelmage99]

Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.

So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?

Yes, it's called blagging, or talking out of your rectum - it's about the only thing in which you possess any degree of competence.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again Sparhafoc ran from a challenge with lies and insults

Fuck off, leroy.
He has repeatedly shown you the difference between the two. You are seemingly just too dense to grasp the difference, despite it repeatedly being made abundantly clear.

Just.....fuck....off.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ja ja ja I am too stupid to understand, therefore you didn't explain it!

Solipsism enshrined.

Of course, it's just lies, misdirection and LEROY's incessant trolling. How deranged do you need to be to spend so much time fucking with a group of strangers on the internet?