Religion

[Immanuel Can]

And in His revelation He has written, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

I feel like I am repeating myself here... How did you authenticate the origin of that message?

Did your read my answer? Sat May 18, 2019 3:40 pm

I answered it there.

[Univalence]

Did your read my answer? Sat May 18, 2019 3:40 pm

I answered it there.

I read it very carefully. Let me show it back to you so that you can reflect on your own claims.

So how about if He gave information through specific individuals who could write it down...

The moment I claimed that he relayed the information to ME, you felt the need to caution me.
Are you in the habit of cautioning Prophets of God?

or better still, how about if God Himself became a man, and attested to his own authenticity...

So if I claimed to be God in the flesh. Would that convince you?

say, maybe by doing a few miracles, like maybe healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and rising from the dead?

Have you verified the above claims' factuality or have you just read about them in a text whose authenticity you have failed to verify?

There are many books by many deities. What were your criteria for dismissing their claims?

He might also give some clarifications on moral instruction while He was at it...maybe something like "blessed are the meek," or "blessed are the humble..." You know, the kind of thing we wouldn't know ourselves, but strikes us instantly as morally better?

You further failed to answer how somebody lacking a moral compass recognizes healing the sick, feeding the poor and raising the dead as "moral behaviour".

If I went to heaven and you brought me back here - you are a ****.

But lets move all your claims aside for 10 seconds. Do you recognize all those things which you recognize as "miracles" do not require a supreme being?
An advanced alien race which has mastered the laws of physics and biomechanics can meet your criteria. Would you worship them?

[Immanuel Can]

The moment I claimed that he relayed the information to ME, you felt the need to caution me.

If a person is endangering themselves, it's always morally responsible to tell them. They may persist, but it's still a moral duty.

So if I claimed to be God in the flesh. Would that convince you?

Of course not. You'd need to authenticate that claim. You'd also have the additional problem of invalidating Christ's claim at the same time.

There are many books by many deities. What were your criteria for dismissing their claims?

I have read a good many of them, actually. If you did the same, I really don't think you'd have to ask.

And that's the point. One needs to go and look. One will quickly see what is plausible and what is not. But no argument I will be able to make will convince you, because the search for God is a personal responsibility. "Those who seek, find," said Jesus Christ: but also, by implication, what shall we say for those who will not "seek" at all?

But lets move all your claims aside for 10 seconds. Do you recognize all those things which you recognize as "miracles" do not require a supreme being? Only an advanced alien race which has mastered the laws of physics.

Is that your own actual hypothesis about what happened? Or are you merely floating a hypothetical objection, using something you don't believe to be true?

[Univalence]

If a person is endangering themselves, it's always morally responsible to tell them. They may persist, but it's still a moral duty.

Why would I be endangering myself by relaying God's revelation?

Of course not. You'd need to authenticate that claim. You'd also have the additional problem of invalidating Christ's claim at the same time.

Do I have to invalidate Christ's claim if you can't even authenticate it?

I have read a good many of them, actually. If you did the same, I really don't think you'd have to ask.

I have read them. I am asking.

And that's the point. One needs to go and look. One will quickly see what is plausible and what is not. But no argument I will be able to make will convince you, because the search for God is a personal responsibility.

No. This doesn't work for me. Do you discover or just stumble upon God? If you just stumble upon, then how would you recognize its significance?

Is that your own actual hypothesis about what happened? Or are you merely floating a hypothetical objection, using something you don't believe to be true?

Did I say that? I am merely trying to determine your epistemic criteria for authenticity by giving you an alternative and (as far as principles of evidentiary reasoning are concerned) equally plausible hypothesis.

I want to see how you apportion the evidence when you have multiple competing theories explaining it.

[Immanuel Can]

I have read them. I am asking.

What have you read? Let's talk particulars.

And that's the point. One needs to go and look. One will quickly see what is plausible and what is not. But no argument I will be able to make will convince you, because the search for God is a personal responsibility.

No. This doesn't work for me.

Well, it really needs to, because that's the truth.

Is that your own actual hypothesis about what happened? Or are you merely floating a hypothetical objection, using something you don't believe to be true?

Did I say that?

Did you say which? Which alternative are you referring to? It can only be one or the other.

Either it's something you personally believe, or it's not. I'm not telling you which it is, I'm asking.

[Univalence]

What have you read? Let's talk particulars.

Lets talk particulars after you have shared your epistemic criteria for authenticity with me.

Well, it really needs to, because that's the truth.

What is your epistemic criterion for "truth" ?

It can only be one or the other.

Yes, but that's not how epistemology works. You could (and often do) find yourself having two (often even more) hypotheses explaining the exact same evidence/facts. So saying "only one of them is true" is a silly truism. OBVIOUSLY there is only one truth.

The epistemic problem is precisely that: determining which one is true. Which is the same as saying "eliminating the false hypotheses".

So the epistemic question (again): when you have two competing hypotheses how do you choose "truth" ?

Perhaps I should ask you this: which one is a more outlandish hypothesis?

A. A technologically advanced alien race can do things humans find "miraculous".
B. God did it.

[Immanuel Can]

What have you read? Let's talk particulars.

Lets talk particulars after you have shared your epistemic criteria for authenticity with me.

It will be very easy to illustrate, if we use particulars. Which books would you like to start by comparing?

Well, it really needs to, because that's the truth.

What is your epistemic criterion for "truth" ? [/quote]
In context, I mean it's something that will be really so, regardless of our opinions.

It can only be one or the other.

Yes, but that's not how epistemology works.

It is when you have a true dichotomy. The light switch is on, or its off. The man is dead, or he is alive. I know, I don't know.
These things don't have degrees, because even a little bit of "on-ness" or "life" is sufficient to say the light is on, or the man's still alive.

In this case, aliens are your actual hypothesis, or merely a hypothetical imagining. You consider them a fact, or you consider them fiction. True dichotomy. No third option.

Perhaps I should ask you this: which one is a more outlandish hypothesis?
A. A technologically advanced alien race can do things humans find "miraculous".
B. God did it.

Easy. "B" is obviously better, because "A" doesn't answer the question of where they aliens come from; it just moves it one step back in a logical regress. "B" refers to a First Cause, so answers the question and stops the infinite regress. So even just from a structural point of view, "B" is better as a hypothesis.

Now, proving the truth of the hypothesis is a different question, of course. But we can work on that.

[Univalence]

It will be very easy to illustrate, if we use particulars. Which books would you like to start by comparing?

On the contrary. I want an a priori standard so that you don't move the goal posts and play apologetics later, when I start contradicting you.

In context, I mean it's something that will be really so, regardless of our opinions.

What is your epistemic criterion for distinguishing between your own opinions and things that are "really so"?

It is when you have a true dichotomy. The light switch is on, or its off. The man is dead, or he is alive. I know, I don't know.
These things don't have degrees, because even a little bit of "on-ness" or "life" is sufficient to say the light is on, or the man's still alive.

If we were dealing with light bulbs and switches you might have an argument. But this is clearly not a dichotomy.

In this case, aliens are your actual hypothesis, or merely a hypothetical imagining. You consider them a fact, or you consider them fiction. True dichotomy. No third option.

I consider neither God nor Aliens as fact.

I am evaluating both purely on the balance of (im?)probability

Easy. "B" is obviously better, because "A" doesn't answer the question of where they aliens come from;
it just moves it one step back in a logical regress. "B" refers to a First Cause, so answers the question and stops the infinite regress. So even just from a structural point of view, "B" is better as a hypothesis.

A is testable, and on the balance of evidence - plausible, because if a life form exists (humans) alien life forms are plausible.
B is untestable. Nothing can be said about its plausibility.

You lack the epistemic capacity for me to continue this conversation with you.

[Immanuel Can]

It will be very easy to illustrate, if we use particulars. Which books would you like to start by comparing?

On the contrary. I want an a priori standard

Interested in a theory without data? A priori means, "assumptively prior to the possibility of evidence."

What is your epistemic criterion for distinguishing between your own opinions and things that are "really so"?

"Opinions" are not the opposite of "things that are really so", but have an overlap. Some opinions are right, and some are wrong, depending on their conformity to reality.

It is when you have a true dichotomy. The light switch is on, or its off. The man is dead, or he is alive. I know, I don't know.
These things don't have degrees, because even a little bit of "on-ness" or "life" is sufficient to say the light is on, or the man's still alive.

If we were dealing with light bulbs and switches you might have an argument. But this is clearly not a dichotomy.

It is. Either your case is known by you to be fictive, or its believe by you to be real. There's no third option between "fictive" and "real."

B is untestable. Nothing can be said about its plausibility.

Sure, it's testable. Claims about historical persons, events and facts are empirical claims. "B" should be accompanied by significant evidence, and it is.

[Univalence]

Interested in a theory without data? A priori means, "assumptively prior to the possibility of evidence."

I am interested in your, SUBJECTIVE epistemic standards. Openly stated. So that I can hold you accountable to them later on.

"Opinions" are not the opposite of "things that are really so", but have an overlap. Some opinions are right, and some are wrong, depending on their conformity to reality.

I am not asking you for your categories. I am asking you for the mental process/methodology/process/mechanism by which you categorize such things.

It is. Either your case is known by you to be fictive, or its believe by you to be real. There's no third option between "fictive" and "real."

My mind isn't dichotomized. I think on continuums. I have a bunch of hypothesis each one with various degrees of plausibility assigned to them.

Sure, it's testable. Claims about historical persons, events and facts are empirical claims. "B" should be accompanied by significant evidence, and it is.

If that were the case all the evidence which supports B supports A also.

If an entity stood before you right now, raised the dead, materialized food and cured the sick you are unable to determine if that entity is God or an Alien.

You lack the epistemic tools to draw such a distinction.

[Immanuel Can]

Interested in a theory without data? A priori means, "assumptively prior to the possibility of evidence."

I am interested in your, SUBJECTIVE epistemic standards.

They aren't subjective. The objective truth is that all matters of empirical fact are matters of probability calculation -- higher or lower.

So there it is.

I am asking you for the mental process/methodology/process/mechanism by which you categorize such things.

Opinions are either accurate or inaccurate reflections of objective reality.

It is. Either your case is known by you to be fictive, or its believe by you to be real. There's no third option between "fictive" and "real."

My mind isn't dichotomized.

In this, it should be. There's no third alternative, and no "continuum" there.

Sure, it's testable. Claims about historical persons, events and facts are empirical claims. "B" should be accompanied by significant evidence, and it is.

If that were the case all the evidence which supports B supports A also.

Well, let's see if that's true. Let's get to the particulars.

[Univalence]

They aren't subjective. The objective truth is that all matters of empirical fact are matters of probability calculation -- higher or lower.

You are the subject weighing the evidence. You get to assign whatever weights you choose to the evidence. You get to admit/reject evidence on your own whims.

Epistemology is subjective.

In this, it should be. There's no third alternative, and no "continuum" there.

I gave you a third alternative. On what grounds are you dismissing it?

A. Fact: God.
B. Fact: Aliens.
C. Fiction

Well, let's see if that's true. Let's get to the particulars.

Not until we resolve our epistemic differences.

Both the Alien and God hypotheses are equally plausible. Right up to First Cause. We live in a computer simulation created by Aliens.

In fact the number of hypotheses is growing...

A. Fact: God.
B. Fact: Aliens (We live in a computer simulation)
C. Fact: Aliens (From distant galaxy)
D. Fiction
E. None of the above (I don't know).

[Immanuel Can]

Epistemology is subjective.

In what sense do you use the word "subjective" there? It can mean several things.

In this, it should be. There's no third alternative, and no "continuum" there.

I gave you a third alternative.

Actually, you didn't.

I was asking if you were offering the "aliens" hypothesis as fact (your belief) or fiction (a mere hypothetical). You answered "neither," an answer that is not even possibly true, because if something is a fact it's not a fiction, and if something's a fiction, it's not the true facts, but is something made up.

Do you have an answer?

[Univalence]

In what sense do you use the word "subjective" there? It can mean several things.

In the sense that there is almost no way for us to agree on whether any particular thing is evidence or not.
In the sense that there is no way to agree in the weights to each piece of evidence. What is "strong evidence for theory X" I could interpret it as "weak evidence against theory X".

Actually, you didn't.

Q.E.D

You answered "neither," an answer that is not even possibly true, because if something is a fact it's not a fiction, and if something's a fiction, it's not the true facts, but is something made up.

Q.E.D again. You don't seem to draw a distinction between evidence/facts (which can be true and false) and hypotheses - the interpretation of the facts from the view-point of a hypothesis.

Facts/evidence are true or false.
Hypotheses are more/less plausible given a set of facts.

Jesus is either factual or fictitious. For the sake of argument - Jesus was factual.

From the view-point of your God-hypothesis: Jesus was the son of God.
From the view-point of my Alien-hypothesis: Jesus was an Alien.

Which one is fiction?

[Immanuel Can]

In what sense do you use the word "subjective" there? It can mean several things.

In the sense that there is almost no way for us to agree on whether any particular thing is evidence or not.
In the sense that there is no way to agree in the weights to each piece of evidence. What is "strong evidence for theory X" I could interpret it as "weak evidence against theory X".

Ah. So in a kind of blank, relativistic sense, then. We have no epistemic standards, you say.

So, just how did you discern this, in the absence of the possibility of any epistemic standards, and what makes you believe I'm wrong, since no criteria exist?

You don't seem to draw a distinction between evidence/facts (which can be true and false) and hypotheses - the interpretation of the facts from the view-point of a hypothesis.

I asked you why you asked the alien question: because you regarded it as a fiction or as a fact. You still haven't answered.