Meeting with Bishop: Faith is a Choice

[_Hoops]

That's up to you. I've engaged this position: science is the only way to determine truth or what is real. That is clearly wrong.

Engaging in lame Simon Belmontisms in order to hide your faith from criticism by denying objective reality is in no way "engaging the position."

Buffalo, put away your tired reflexive rejoiners. Think for a moment. You use the phrase objective reality. What proof do you have that what you are claiming is in fact an accurate representation of what is real? How do you know that your experience gives you access to reality in total?

[_Chap]

That's up to you. I've engaged this position: science is the only way to determine truth or what is real. That is clearly wrong.

Engaging in lame Simon Belmontisms in order to hide your faith from criticism by denying objective reality is in no way "engaging the position."

So you are going to do the 'reality' thing too? I am not sure if that is your best tactic at all.

You know, when I learned about science, I don't remember any lessons about 'reality'. In fact, the only time I seem to remember having to use the word 'real' in a practical context was when we were talking about phasor quantities in alternating current circuit theory, and we had to talk about the real and imaginary axes in relation to complex numbers.

How about instead asking people who make faith claims how they decide whether they agree with someone else who makes a faith-based claim, and what kind of evidence counts as relevant to such a decision? That can lead in some interesting directions ...

[_Themis]

Themis,

I have not advocated nor do I going against empirical facts, your conversing with someone else.

mikwut

Nor have I.

You have if you believe in a global flood or young earth. :)

[_Hoops]

So you are going to do the 'reality' thing too? I am not sure if that is your best tactic at all.

This is not a reality thing. It's a simple question drawn from your claim that your experience tells you certain things. I want to know how your logic, reason, and physical experience gains you access to external reality.

I'll note that you and Buffalo are either unwilling or unable to answer the question.

[_Hoops]

You have if you believe in a global flood or young earth. :)

When did I write that I did?

[_Buffalo]

You use the phrase objective reality. What proof do you have that what you are claiming is in fact an accurate representation of what is real? How do you know that your experience gives you access to reality in total?

Outside, replicable verification.

[_Hoops]

You use the phrase objective reality. What proof do you have that what you are claiming is in fact an accurate representation of what is real? How do you know that your experience gives you access to reality in total?

Outside, replicable verification.

Outside of what? Outside of you? But you are just another of millions of vessels with the same limited sensory appratus as all the others. so your verification is really not outside of anything at all.

[_Hoops]

When you and chap describe that mug lying on the table. You both use your sense to come to roughly the same conclusions. It is orange, it weighs a certain amount, it held coffee at one time, you hold it your hands and it feels rough.

But all of these determinations have come from within you (and he). You have only provided evidence that your perceptions are in relative sync. You have yet to prove that the mug is actually there, that is is real apart from your experience with it.

[_Buffalo]

Outside of what? Outside of you? But you are just another of millions of vessels with the same limited sensory appratus as all the others. so your verification is really not outside of anything at all.

Yes, outside of myself. I'm not sure if you've kept up with current events, but we're no longer limited to the five senses.



And a perspective external to me is, by definition, outside myself.

[_Buffalo]

When you and chap describe that mug lying on the table. You both use your sense to come to roughly the same conclusions. It is orange, it weighs a certain amount, it held coffee at one time, you hold it your hands and it feels rough.

But all of these determinations have come from within you (and he). You have only provided evidence that your perceptions are in relative sync. You have yet to prove that the mug is actually there, that is is real apart from your experience with it.

Are you going to make statements like these and continue to deny you're engaging in solipsism?