tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post1852106500467596507..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: The Prideful: A Highly Personal TiradeFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-72717003947459932342014-06-25T08:58:17.783-04:002014-06-25T08:58:17.783-04:00Francis, I think we might disagree on the definiti...Francis, I think we might disagree on the definition of empirical statements. I'm not clear what "processes that are experienced (or not) by men" means.<br /><br />Empirical statements are claims about the world. X exists, X does not exist, X happened, X did not happen etc. If your sense of "empirical statements" expands beyond that then I'd like to hear a little more about that.<br /><br />"Claims about existence need not involve personal experience." Agreed.<br /><br />"Besides, claims of experiences involving God are, by their nature, always disputable." <br /><br />Empirical claims involving anything are, by their nature, disputable. God is not a special case of an empirical claim.<br /><br />"Indeed, existence proofs are the only sort that can be made rigorous outside mathematics and its rules of deduction and inference." <br /><br />Here I would disagree. The critiques that followed Descartes' Cogito specifically challenged existence claims via logic. "I think therefore I am" failed to prove what Descartes hoped it would.<br /><br />"I did mention that I'm a skilled logician, didn't I?" There's lots of logicians out there :) <br /><br />I too enjoy your blog immensely.månesteinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14442277691860213285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-84381333133674533732014-06-24T16:45:44.637-04:002014-06-24T16:45:44.637-04:00That Speaker to Animals quote is priceless! One of...That Speaker to Animals quote is priceless! One of my all-time favorites.<br /><br />Enjoy your blog immensely!<br /><br />Phil<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-53137665052402056092014-06-24T16:19:37.379-04:002014-06-24T16:19:37.379-04:00I would disagree, Mane. An empirical statement is,...I would disagree, Mane. An empirical statement is, by the etymology of the word, a statement about facts or processes that are experienced (or not) by men. Claims about existence need not involve personal experience. Besides, claims of experiences involving God are, by their nature, always disputable.<br /><br />Indeed, existence proofs are the only sort that can be made rigorous <i>outside</i> mathematics and its rules of deduction and inference. such a proof proceeds from the Aristotelian approach to definition: the agreement upon the <i>genus</i> and <i>differentia</i> pertaining to the category of interest, followed by the demonstration that:<br /><br />1) One or more things that satisfy the <i>genus</i> and <i>differentia</i> exist and can be produced; or:<br /><br />2) No entity that can exist within the laws of this universe as we know them can satisfy those criteria.<br /><br />I <i>did</i> mention that I'm a skilled logician, didn't I?Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-49916430144205290072014-06-24T12:01:38.004-04:002014-06-24T12:01:38.004-04:00"All of which makes both theism and atheism m..."All of which makes both theism and atheism matters of faith rather than logically impregnable conclusions".<br /><br />There's a different way to look at that. Both theists and atheists are making an empirical claim. The theist claims that the statement "God exists" is true, and the atheist claims that it is false. <br /><br />Empirical claims, by their nature, are not provable. They are not the result of "logically impregnable conclusions". Only mathematical and logical claims are provable.<br /><br />Since no empirical claims are provable we must accept the fact that when we assign a truth value to any such claim that there is no certainty. All we have is a wide spectrum of probability from no evidence, a little bit of evidence, a lot of evidence, to overwhelming evidence. But we never can make it to certainty. Even poor Descartes couldn't prove that he himself existed, though he gave it a good try.<br /><br />The difference between a theist and an atheist is just a matter of where they fall on the probability spectrum towards the proposition "God exists". If either of them imagines that their truth assignment is certain then they don't appreciate the nature of empirical claims.<br /><br />Just to quibble a bit more...<br /><br />"Theist: We call it faith: the acceptance of a proposition without a demand for proof..."<br /><br />As to the acceptance of any empirical proposition no one should be demanding proof. Evidence is always nice. And a sky-high mountain of evidence is even better. But no empirical claims, even ones which we are convinced are incontrovertibly true, e.g. "jumping into a live volcano will result in death", meet the level of proof. Only valid deductive arguments meet the level of proof.månesteinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14442277691860213285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-82108093217786319282014-06-23T12:46:24.743-04:002014-06-23T12:46:24.743-04:00Just thought I would sent a quick note to affirm t...Just thought I would sent a quick note to affirm that there is at least one atheist/agnostic who not only agrees with your assessment that "It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God", but also the concept that "both theism and atheism [are] matters of faith". I call myself an agnostic these days, rather than an atheist, because I recognize the faith requirement, and frankly, I'd rather not further a line of thinking which cannot be proven. There's a lot more to it, but time is short.<br /><br />I'd also like to say though that I believe more people need God and the Bible. I don't think most people are mentally robust enough to dispense with them and maintain a moral heading. I was thankfully raised with them, and logic destroyed my faith, but not my humility. Most atheists rail against theism for the same reasons and using the same arguments which they disdain when used by theists. I recently had an argument along these lines with fellow "atheists", and when they found they couldn't prove their points, they resorted to name calling, even though I was of like mind in-principle. VERY interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com