Al Gore and Atheists

AnyOldIron said:
Rubbish. There is no "knowledge" when speaking of something on only the level of possibility.

Of course there is. There has to be points of reference.

People talk about deities being 'unknowable', yet we have knowledge of them...

We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.

But we must have points of reference. If a deity, for example, is outside the sphere of human understanding or perception....where did the knowledge of the diety come from?
Click to expand...


From the imagination.... I can discuss what I imagine with asserting knowledge of it. I don't "know" that this Entity exists, just that I can discuss it based on what questions I can ask without such knowledge.

I can ask questions and begin logical conversations based solely on what posssibilities I can imagine.

I think what your problem is, you are still stuck in the whole Bible says so, therefore I have knowledge stuff. I am speaking far more of possibility than of Biblical reference... I have been from the beginning. One can believe in something and still discuss it at such a level. In fact it is the only level where Logos and such an Entity can meet.

The whole idea of "knowledge" when your assertion that you can prove nothing is ridiculous to begin with. One can never know ANYTHING if nothing can be proven to a certainty.... You assert knowledge where none exists because you want to redefine something to fit within a framework of your construction, not that of the conversation.

In most cases, it is nothing more than anthropomorphic attribution of natural phenomenon......
Click to expand...
The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.

But you must have points of reference to be curious of...
Click to expand...

No, you don't. What if there realy is a Great Green Arkleseizure... doesn't need to have any point of reference other than the Universe exists and even that is debatable.


Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...

Such as...

1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?

Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.

Aprioiri metaphysics. We could sit and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, but that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


No, it is not. During the discussion one would define what an angel is, what their size is, what powers they have, etc. One doesn't even have to have pre-knowledge of the creature to have such a discussion.

What we are discussing is.. If something that we claim to have knowledge of (god/angels etc) is unknowable by human capabilities the question still stands... how did we obtain that knowledge?
Click to expand...

By being given it. But that is not what I have been discussing. I have been discussing how such an Entity could fit within the specific framework you try to force it in. Something like this, if it exists, could by definition easily define itself outside your pre-framed argument. That is the point I have been making.

I can discuss within Logos nearly anything that I can imagine. To say that what I can imagine must fit within your own prejudged group of set principles is patently ridiculous.


We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.

Our knowledge of these things holds that they are fictional that they are creations reflecting the human imagination. The characters are reflections of ourselves...anthropomorphising...
Click to expand...


No, they are a discussion of possibility. We can also discuss a God who cares nothing for its "creation", doesn't need nor want worship, and that we can't even define the emotions of... All without pre-knowledge.

Are you claiming that this transposes to the transcendental, that the transcendental is a figment of the human imagination, mere anthropomorphising? If so, I agree.
Click to expand...

No, I am stating that such arguments cannot find actual knowledge. To be able to say that they are "merely anthropomorphizing" is making a certainty from what cannot be known. It makes a positive statement you have no evidence of. Prove to me that they are merely anthropomorphizing... It is your assertion, back it up. Merely stating that their argument isn't within a certain framework doesn't prove what they state isn't truth and therefore not "anthropmorphizing"...


But to claim that something actually exists, to then claim that that entity is beyond all human reference, the question lies... what makes you think it exists. If it is beyond all human reference how does the believer know?
Click to expand...

I haven't made any such assertions, only that such an argument has exactly the same merit as saying "They are all anthropomorphizing" and has exactly the same amount of evidence to back it up. None.
 
Damo, I have to go home in the next ten minutes and this is too long for me to reply to in that time.

Shall we rejoin the fight tomorrow?
 
We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.
//

Hmm, the groundwork for a new religion, maybe I can get tax exempt status :)
This will be all written down by the prophet snork, while on a pilgrimage to Vegas, his hand guided by the Great Green Arkleseizure. hmm possibilities.....
 
There seems to be two arguments here...

1. Is pathos weaker than logos in debate?

&

2. Is it possible for an entity to exist outside our sphere of reference?

In answer to part one:

The sheer fact that pathos-based argument is entirely unverifiable demonstrates that it is significantly weaker than logos.

There are no areas that pathos deals with better than logos. Pathos doesn't deal with the metaphysical (of which the transcendental is part) any better than the physical. Emotions are misleading and complicated, and our poor knowledge of their workings often results in us attributing to them things other than what they are.

In answer to part two:

Yes, of course it is possible for an entity to exist outside our sphere of reference. But if a notion is within our knowledge (such as the concept of the transcendental) you have to ask how that arrived there, when you consider that the subject of that notion is beyond our comprehension. You have to question the source of the knowledge.

You have to ask if the knowledge is derived from that that you mentioned... the imagination.
A prioiri knowledge. Knowledge derived from a posteriori knowledge, but then transformed into a prioiri by the imagination, creating the concepts of the 'unknowable'. You have to ask if we are anthropomorphising. Are we creating a realm in our imagination transposing humanesque qualities to phenomenon that is difficult to understand? Are we creating a realm from our own points of reference? It is not for no reason that most concepts of transcendental forces are exaggerated human forms or variations of human 'essence'.

How can so many people share the same concept, derived from imagination? The same way any information is transmitted through culture - memetics.

As I said, this phenomenon doesn't negate there being entities outside our sphere of reference, but if we have knowledge that contains notions of things outside our possible comprehension you cannot just accept that knowledge on face-value. You have to question their origins.
 
But you must have points of reference to be curious of...

No, you don't. What if there realy is a Great Green Arkleseizure... doesn't need to have any point of reference other than the Universe exists and even that is debatable.

Even the Great Green Arkleseizure has points of reference from which Adam's imagination derives it from. The imagination cannot operate in isolation, without reference to external stimuli.

The GGA is anthropomorphisation. The notion of a sneeze from it's nose identifies it as such....
 
uscitizen said:
I admire and support true christians, those who follow the lifestyle taught by Christ.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think not. Christ, for example, condemned fornication; yet you claim I am insane because I wish to save intimacy for marriage. Christ also commanded repentence. If you honestly admire this lifestyle, then I suggest you repent now and follow it. Jesus Christ atoned for your sins and rose from the grave so that you can have a personal relationship with God, just as Adam did, and so that you can have eternal life. The life of Christ is not over, nor will it ever end; Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life. :)
 
Brent, are you aware that Jesus was a moral relativist?

'Do unto others' is an example of this, demonstrating Jesus' understanding of transference of perception, seeing the world through others eyes.
 
Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life.

He died 2000 years ago, executed for his radical teachings.

He isn't Elvis you know.....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life.

He died 2000 years ago, executed for his radical teachings.

He isn't Elvis you know.....
Click to expand...
Ah, but there are eyewitnesses to his return from that grave. Much like Elvis.
 
AnyOldIron said:
But you must have points of reference to be curious of...

No, you don't. What if there realy is a Great Green Arkleseizure... doesn't need to have any point of reference other than the Universe exists and even that is debatable.

Even the Great Green Arkleseizure has points of reference from which Adam's imagination derives it from. The imagination cannot operate in isolation, without reference to external stimuli.

The GGA is anthropomorphisation. The notion of a sneeze from it's nose identifies it as such....
Click to expand...


Once again, just because this is anthropomorphizing doesn't mean that the only reference for such an Entity is. There are different expressed theories in both philosophy (God's Debris) and fiction (The Gunslinger Series) that have no anthropmorphizing...

The notion of a sneeze was only to bring in the handkercheif... Should we fear it?

Imagination can come up with more than hust humanlike Entities, your self-imposed limitation notwithstanding. And all one needs to discuss it with another is language, something that each and every culture has a piece of. This idea that it is "knowledge" is rubbish. It is speculation.
 
Once again, just because this is anthropomorphizing doesn't mean that the only reference for such an Entity is. There are different expressed theories in both philosophy (God's Debris) and fiction (The Gunslinger Series) that have no anthropmorphizing...

The notion of a sneeze was only to bring in the handkercheif... Should we fear it?

If something is created in the imagination then its entire references come from human experience. Imagination cannot operate in isolation.

If we claim that something is beyond human observation, such as we do with the transcendental, and yet we can imagine the notion, then it must comes from some reference. If there is a reference then the entity can't be then beyond human observation.

If it isn't beyond human observation we can test the notion....
 
We can imagine things that are beyond our test reference. Point being, we can imagine things that are beyond any testable references. This idea that because we can imagine it, it can be tested is ridiculous. A preposterous notion related to an insistence that speaking of an entity that is specifically defined beyond those parameters in terms of those parameters is "logical". It is rubbish. It specifically takes a defined idea outside its own definition and attempts to fit that square peg into a round hole. The idea that such a notion MUST fit here is where you get into fallacy. We can speculate about such an entity, but fitting it into a framework such as that is simply beyond the very definition given to the Entity.

Saying, "It's not good enough to say that it doesn't fit!" when part of the very definition of the thing is that it doesn't fit is FALLACY...
 
We can imagine things that are beyond our test reference.

How? All imagination takes references from experience. No imagining is done in isolation. The culmination of the imaginings may be something that doesn't exist (a priori knowledge) but it originated from contributory references from experience (a posteriori knowledge).

For example, Jabba the Hutt is an entity that doesn't exist outside of imagination, but it took it's references from experience. They might have been anthropomorphised slugs (ie slug with humanesque characteristics).

If we can imagine something, even something that doesn't exist, it's references must come from experience.

For example the notion of the Abrahamic god. It may be an original creation from the imagination but its contributory references (ME despot etc) exist in reality.
 
Imagining something that we cannot test only takes a tiny step of the mind.

"Is it possible that such an Entity could be beyond our test measures?"

"Well, yes, Bob, it is!"

"Well then how do we test for it?"

"Well, Bob, It would be beyond our test reference so we couldn't..."

"Um, well I INSIST it must be in our test reference!"

"Um, well part of the definition is that it is OUTSIDE that reference! I can't just make that go away!"

"You have to!"

Which of these people are simply outside of LOGOS?
 
"Is it possible that such an Entity could be beyond our test measures?"

The entity might be an original entity that doesn't exist and cannot be tested in itself, but no imagination is done in isolation and so the contributory references from a posteriori knowledge exist and are testable.

You can imagine a creation of your own, but the references you use to create this imagination exist...
 
Right, I can reference the fact that something could exist outside the framework of "knowledge" insisting that it fit within that framework afterward would be a fallacy. The same fallacy you have been wallowing in throughout... The one that takes the Entity outside of its very definition in an attempt to logic it away magically.
 
Right, I can reference the fact that something could exist outside the framework of "knowledge" insisting that it fit within that framework afterward would be a fallacy. The same fallacy you have been wallowing in throughout... The one that takes the Entity outside of its very definition in an attempt to logic it away magically.

Not at all. It is the nature of imagination.

You can create an entity in the imagination, an entirely new entity that doesn't exist.

The non-existence of this entity ensures it cannot be tested.

But no entity created in the imagination comes from nothing, not imagination is done in isolation.

All entities created in the imagination are derived from sources.

These sources that contribute to the creation of the non-existent entity being imagined come from experience, a posteriori knowledge.

All a posteriori knowledge is based on entities that do exist.

If the contributary factors to the non-existent imagined entity exist, the contributory factors can be tested.

That isn't attempting to fit an imagined non-existent entity into some 'framework', it isn't magicking it away???

It is explaining the testable origins of imagined non-existent entities....
 
That doesn't mean that such an Entity would be associated to anthropmorhizing... Once can imagine the Entity to be outside our reference on that level too.

"What would it look like?"

"Well, anything it wanted to."

"Would it want?"

"I don't know, it is outside our ken..."

"Hey wait! That would mean we aren't referencing it to anything and that is impossible!"

"No, it isn't we are talking about it right now."

"Yes it is, because everything we can imagine must have come from something we have seen."

"Well, this didn't..."

The conversation would be impossible if what you suggest is true. Things we imagine are not always associated to things that ARE... That is total rubbish and a false limitation on the mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top