Paul's Message is Irrefutable

Author: Fruit_Inspector

Posts

Total: 244
#91
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Yes, I do think that when evaluating a claim empirical evidence in favor of or against said claim ought to be taken into account. I am not going to say that empirical evidence is at all times and in all places absolute proof of anything, senses can be fooled. Optical illusions are for example a thing that exist. On the other hand I am not going to claim the opposite either, because I do not believe the opposite to be true. If you want my general feelings about empirical evidence I have now given it to you twice. If you want my specific feelings about a specific piece of empirical evidence regarding a specific claim then formulate a question that asks about that.

Can you know anything with absolute certainty?
Yes

If so, please be specific in how you can know anything with absolute certainty.
My answer in post 71 is as specific as I can get with such a non-specific question. I follow the evidence and I make judgments based off of the evidence. When I see an ice cream truck in front of my house, that is convincing empirical evidence that there is an ice cream truck in front of my house. I am sorry to hear that you don't like that particular specific example of how evidence can lead to a conclusion. I am open to examining a different example of your choosing.
#92
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?
I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.
Topic's author
#93
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not going to say that empirical evidence is at all times and in all places absolute proof of anything, senses can be fooled.
I do not disagree with this. But if that is the case, how can you know with absolute certainty that there is an ice cream truck outside your house? Especially if empirical evidence is not "absolute proof" of said ice cream truck? Doesn't there have to be some other final authority to appeal to if empirical evidence is not absolute proof?
Topic's author
#94
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
How do you know that no one else knows?
#95
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How do you know that no one else knows?
...because they cannot demonstrate it.
Topic's author
#96
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Let me make sure I'm understanding your claim.

  • No one has convinced you personally that they know what happens after death.
  • Therefore, no one knows what happens after death.

Is that an accurate summary?
#97
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
  • No one has convinced you personally that they know what happens after death.
  • Therefore, no one knows what happens after death.

Is that an accurate summary?
No. It is not accurate to say I *know* what others know (or don't know), but it is fair to say knowledge claims of the afterlife are not justified.

Did you want to get into NDEs, hallucination, and the like or were you aiming to have a conversation on epistemology?
Topic's author
#98
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I already told you what my aim was. We're both here having a voluntary conversation. You made the claim that no one knows what happens after death. I don't think it was wrong for me to read that as you saying, "I know that no one knows what happens after death." Clearly you meant something different, and now you have clarified that.

We don't have to talk about epistemology. But since your answers have fit your username fairly well, it seemed appropriate to ask how you can be so confident that other people are wrong when you don't seem to have a lot of answers yourself.
#99
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Clearly you meant something different, and now you have clarified that.

We don't have to talk about epistemology. But since your answers have fit your username fairly well. It seemed appropriate to ask how you can be so confident that other people are wrong when you don't seem to have a lot of answers yourself.
Unjustifiable answers are not an indicator of knowledge. I would rather acknowledge my ignorance and allow room for growth than cling to ignorance with the pretense of knowledge.
Topic's author
#100
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
But it seems an answer is only considered justified if you think it is justified. While you can't abandon your own rationality, many people throughout history have disagreed with you and found the existence of God to be a completely rational truth that provides the only justifiable answer for life's big questions (Who are we? Why are we here? etc.) So how do we decide who is right?

You think my answers are unjustified. I think they are justified. So who determines what is considered a justified answer? And by what standard?
#101
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You think my answers are unjustified. I think they are justified. So who determines what is considered a justified answer? And by what standard?
I've asked for your justification:

Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation
To which you provided no justification:

In my defense, I wasn't asking anyone to refute it. I simply stated something in an open forum and people can comment how they choose. If Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is objectively true, it doesn't matter whether I present a convincing argument. Nor does it matter whether you accept it. It is either true or it is false.
IF objectively true =/= being objectively true.

In short, I've not seen justification. Have I missed it?
Topic's author
#102
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Have I provided a rational argument trying to prove the existence of God or to establish the credibility of the Bible here? No, so you have not missed it. But I am sure we are both well aware of many of the arguments that exist, and you remain unconvinced that they provide justification for the Christian claim.

But you keep telling me I need to provide justified answers though, which is why I was asking a general question. What is a justified answer? And who or what decides if it is justified?

As an example, let's say I were to present the cosmological argument with all it's points and sub-points. You then offer rebuttals. At the end, I believe the cosmological argument provides justification for the existence of God, while you do not think it provides justification. How do we determine whether a justified answer has been given when we both disagree?
#103
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Have I provided a rational argument trying to prove the existence of God or to establish the credibility of the Bible here? No, so you have not missed it.
In fairness, youve provide no justification by your own admission. 

What is a justified answer? And who or what decides if it is justified?
Why is the definition of justification important to this conversation when we both recognize there has been none? This seems like obfuscation. Provide justification (or not), and I will acknowledge (or dismiss) as appropriate.
Topic's author
#104
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
So you cannot tell me what a "justified answer" is?
#105
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Yes, of course I can - but that is an unnecessary tangent since we both agree you've provided no justification.

This is like the guy who claims he can fly castigating the standards of skeptics who request demonstration. ;-)
Topic's author
#106
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you cannot even tell me what a justified answer is, then I see no reason to provide that which you will not define.
#107
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Sure...its my fault you provide no justification. :-P

The conversation has been interesting. I'm disappointed to see it end this way, but c'est la vie. If you ever get around to substantiating your claims with evidence and/or argumentation - let me know.


#108
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Just a suggestion: 
If you're really that interested in a justified answer, look at the issue from Fruit_Inspector's perspective and find your own justification. Play devil's advocate, so to speak. If you cannot argue a point in your opponent's favor, what are you doing here?
#109
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Fruit_inspector should be able to lead me through his reasoning (rather than question how justification works) if his position is something he has considered.

Also, you may find this relevant to your challenge:



Topic's author
#110
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
To make sure I have been clear, I am not seeking to justify my claim in terms of providing rational argumentation to establish irrefutable evidence that what I am saying is true. I have already stated that was not my intention, though I'm willing to discuss since this is an open forum.

I am making the point that, as far as I can tell, a justified claim to you is simply that which you are convinced is true. Conversely, that which is unjustified is that which you are not convinced is true.

If that is the case, then a justified claim or justified answer is synonymous with your opinion. You then become the final arbiter and authority as to what is true. Which seems to be your justification for the claim that no one knows what happens after death - because no one has convinced you.
#111
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
 Which seems to be your justification for the claim that no one knows what happens after death - because no one has convinced you.
I think it is that no one has come back from death and shown us pictures that they had taken on their iphone. Remember that your afterlife will be the same as your beforelife.
Topic's author
#112
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
Well all technology in heaven is compatible, so there will be no Apple products.
#113
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Touche'
#114
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have two thoughts on this: 
  1. If you want to persuade others, then you'll necessarily need to convince them. You alone being convinced isn't sufficient reason for others to be convinced. 
  2.  I'm actually curious how you define 'justified claim' now, since you seem to think my standards are subjective and unreasonable.  This is my (provisional) definition - A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid. 

As a heads up, an afterlife would necessarily require a soul. Modern science and/or logic strongly argues against the soul. No argument I've seen for the afterlife accounts for this. Maybe yours is different...the world may never know - especially while "justified" is the focus of attention.  :-)
Topic's author
#115
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
1. If you want to persuade others, then you'll necessarily need to convince them. You alone being convinced isn't sufficient reason for others to be convinced.
I agree. But as I stated, I am not seeking to persuade you that Paul's message is true through the kind of exhaustive rational argumentation typical of debates here. I made a statement for the purpose of others to hear it as is and answer the question: is it true?

2. I'm actually curious how you define 'justified claim' now, since you seem to think my standards are subjective and unreasonable.  This is my (provisional) definition - A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid.
Subjective, yes. Unreasonable, not necessarily. It seems you have a similar approach to that of a court room. But if we use that analogy, you would be the judge and the jury in that you determine the parameters for presenting evidence and declare the verdict. You are the final authority. And there is also always room for doubt, however small. But understandably, analogies are never perfect so I'm not trying to force meaning to your view with that.

My final authority is the Bible. My definition of a justified claim (also provisional) would be "that which the Bible affirms is true, and that which the Bible rejects is false." For example, the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth." Any truth claim that does not affirm that God created the heavens and the earth is then false.
#116
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But if we use that analogy, you would be the judge and the jury in that you determine the parameters for presenting evidence and declare the verdict. You are the final authority.
Nonsense. I'm not the arbiter of evidence or logic - nor do I claim to be. I think you might be projecting a bit here. You are the one who seeks to avoid "rational argumentation" because, seemingly,  you think it is secondary to your own standard.

My final authority is the Bible. My definition of a justified claim (also provisional) would be "that which the Bible affirms is true, and that which the Bible rejects is false." For example, the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth." Any truth claim that does not affirm that God created the heavens and the earth is then false.


Topic's author
#117
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nonsense. I'm not the arbiter of evidence or logic - nor do I claim to be. I think you might be projecting a bit here.
I think the jury bit is fair, but perhaps the example of judge was premature without digging a bit deeper into your view.

You are the one who seeks to avoid "rational argumentation" because, seemingly, you think it is secondary to your own standard.
I do not avoid or abandon rational argumentation in general. My overall participation on this site is evidence of that. Since my intention here is not to persuade through exhaustive rational arguments in this specific forum post, yes I have intentionally avoided going down that rabbit hole. That may seem absurd to you, but here we are.

Turtles all the way down, eh?
We all have to appeal to some degree of circular reasoning eventually because we all have a final authority. It seems that personal reasoning based on available evidence is yours ("A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid."). So you may have good reason to trust your reason based on evidence or experience. But you must ultimately appeal to your reason to justify your reason:

"It is reasonable to trust my reason."
"How do you know?"
"Because I reasoned that it is based on ______."

Now even if you disagree about that conclusion, perhaps it should be asked: what is wrong with circular reasoning?
Topic's author
#118
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'll just make my point so it doesn't seem tangential. Circular reasoning is not necessarily invalid if the reasoning is based on a valid premise:

If the Bible is true, then circular reasoning based on the Bible claiming it is true is not fallacious - though it may not be particularly persuasive to someone else.
#119
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Since my intention here is not to persuade through exhaustive rational arguments in this specific forum post, yes I have intentionally avoided going down that rabbit hole. That may seem absurd to you, but here we are.
You're right: it is absurd to me.

We all have to appeal to some degree of circular reasoning eventually because we all have a final authority. It seems that personal reasoning based on available evidence is yours ("A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid."). So you may have good reason to trust your reason based on evidence or experience. But you must ultimately appeal to your reason to justify your reason:

First, it's not "my reason" - it's logic. ...and we (ie. Humanity) accept it because no observation has ever contradicted it - it has withstood considerable scrutiny.

Now even if you disagree about that conclusion, perhaps it should be asked: what is wrong with circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning which adds nothing new to the conversation is fallacious. To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true, but the fallaciousness comes in the small circles. 'My book is true because it says its true' is a tiny circle compared to 'trial and error has shown us (humanity) these rules of logic are always true (or have never been shown wrong)'.  All rings are not equal. ;-)

I'll just make my point so it doesn't seem tangential. Circular reasoning is not necessarily invalid if the reasoning is based on a valid premise:

If the Bible is true, then circular reasoning based on the Bible claiming it is true is not fallacious - though it may not be particularly persuasive to someone else.
The argument is fallacious- and it can be demonstrated with every Biblical error, scientific absurdity, ignorance, and inequality attributed to an 'all knowing, all powerful, loving god' ...along with the interpolation, redaction, and general and undeniable human corruption of the so-called "Word of God". 

If that is your standard, you don't know very much about the Bible, my friend. I don't imagine this is something you will be able to accept from me though. We can discuss it only if you prefer. If not, suffice to say there's probably not any way I'm going to be able to accept your standard and we'll leave it at that.

Topic's author
#120
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
First, it's not "my reason" - it's logic. ...and we (ie. Humanity) accept it because no observation has ever contradicted it - it has withstood considerable scrutiny.
Logic is an abstract and impersonal concept. You apply logic by means of your personal reasoning. However, logic by itself is not infallible. Zeno's paradoxes demonstrate that logic can be unreasonable.

Circular reasoning which adds nothing new to the conversation is fallacious. To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true, but the fallaciousness comes in the small circles
You can add whatever qualifications you want, but what I read here is, "My circular reasoning is reasonable, and your circular reasoning is fallacious."

Again, if you use logic as your point of final authority and circular reasoning, you should never be able to move (because moving from one spot to another requires you to first reach a halfway point. But to reach the first halfway point, you have to reach the next halfway point. And there are an infinite number of halfway points....).