honorentheos wrote:I think he's banking on you not providing a better alternative.
I'd say that's pretty safe money.
Your statement implies that your method has efficacy at the outset. Which I've shown it does not.
No, you have not shown this. You keep taking a consensus view that our senses are flawed and extrapolating this into ineffective. Efficacy is proven every time you use your senses and survive another day.
You want to imply that this doesn't tell us anything about some ultimate underlying reality, be my guest. But until you can show how you access this reality yourself or claim knowledge of it in some testable manner, you're just playing elementary school politics.
Quit dodging the obvious problem with your point, Hoops. We all know the senses are flawed. But you have yet to point out a better way.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
No, you have not shown this. You keep taking a consensus view that our senses are flawed and extrapolating this into ineffective.
I have done no such thing, that is not my intention, and I don't know where you've come up with this.
Efficacy is proven every time you use your senses and survive another day.
To showing that you have access to what is actually real? Not at all.
You want to imply that this doesn't tell us anything about some ultimate underlying reality, be my guest. But until you can show how you access this reality yourself or claim knowledge of it in some testable manner, you're just playing elementary school politics.
That is not on me, that is on you. You claim that empiricism gives you all the information you need to make certain determinations - specifically, there is no God, or, there is no evidence for God. This is illogical at its core. I can't help you any further if you can't see this.
Quit dodging the obvious problem with your point, Hoops. We all know the senses are flawed. But you have yet to point out a better way.
Again, that's not my position. I don't think the senses are flawed. Apparently, you do. But the sense are flawed when they are appealed to for this statement common to atheists: my reason and logic tells me there is no God.
That statement violates the very premise the atheist presumes to rely upon.
Sorry, but you can't get around this: our senses, our experience, how we perceive the cup as blue, can never penetrate to the cup as it really is.
Hoops wrote:Again, that's not my position. I don't think the senses are flawed. Apparently, you do. But the sense are flawed when they are appealed to for this statement common to atheists: my reason and logic tells me there is no God.
That statement violates the very premise the atheist presumes to rely upon.
Sorry, but you can't get around this: our senses, our experience, how we perceive the cup as blue, can never penetrate to the cup as it really is.
13 pages of an ever goal-posts shifting argument by assertion. But it still boils down to nothing is real, therefore Jesus. Silly Hoops.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: 13 pages of an ever goal-posts shifting argument by assertion. But it still boils down to nothing is real, therefore Jesus. Silly Hoops.
Hoops wrote:I don't think the senses are flawed... but you can't get around this: our senses, our experience, how we perceive the cup as blue, can never penetrate to the cup as it really is.
srsly?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa