If you don't trust the Bible, Where do you look for truth?

[2timothy316]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Using gluttony as an example, is it true that gluttony will objectively result in negative consequences to the glutton's health? Yes.

Is it true that gluttony is immoral? That answer depends on how your epistemology defines morality.

I disagree and your very top line helps us understand why.

You are correct, gluttony would be known to be wrong because of science/fact/truth because objective negative consequences. Again, this has nothing to do with religion.

A pet peeve of mine is people who try to claim a Christian only believes something because their Bible tells them so. LOL!

Something is not right/wrong because the Church says it is right/wrong, rather the Church declares something right/wrong because it IS right/wrong and something all men can know via observation and acknowledgment of the way the world works.

If your epistemology defines moral truth as that which corresponds with the Bible's moral prescriptions, then it is true that gluttony is immoral because it is condemned in the scriptures. If your epistemology defines moral truth to be that which maximizes well-being and minimizes harm for the most people, than it is true that gluttony is immoral because consuming an excessive amounts of a limited quantity of food deprives other people from their fair share.

What you are suggesting is the ‘ole “what’s true for you, is not necessarily true for me�, but such a statement is illogical. Truth is truth. If rape is wrong, then rape is wrong. It is illogical to argue it is wrong for you, but not for me because I don’t think/believe it is wrong. That’s moral relativism, the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which is what you are suggesting and which is an illogical position. It’s actually self refuting.

Joe: There is no such thing as truth.
Sue: Is that true?

If your epistemology defines moral truth to be that which provides personal pleasure regardless of the consequences to your overall well-being or the well-being of others, then it is not true that gluttony is immoral.

Wrong. It just means the person saying this is getting it wrong. It means they are using an incorrect/invalid moral code. Eating or drinking more than man needs is wrong for all men, because it can be known that it is not in man’s best interest to be gluttonous. This is something that can be observed and acknowledged and can be demonstrated via science/research/facts.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 101 by RightReason]

To adequately explain how epistemology works will take some time. So, I apologize in advance for the length of this response:

Your self-awareness and sensory experiences are limited to that which corresponds with the reality you perceive. If your metaphysical reality is something different from the reality you perceive, then knowledge of that absolute truth is inaccessible to you. However, your self-awareness and sensory experiences do enable you to distinguish imagined things (the conceptual) from observable things (the empirical) within the boundaries of what is objectively verifiable. For example, when you imagine yourself eating an apple like the one you observed at the grocery store, your senses do not detect the existence of an apple in your external reality as they would for an apple you purchased at the grocery store. You can also imagine yourself throwing an apple at your glass window and predict what your senses would observe if such an event actually took place. Conversely, taking the action of actually throwing the apple you purchased from the grocery store at your glass window will result in observable and objective consequences your senses will definitely distinguish as not imaginary. This is not only the case for apples and windows but for everything observable in the external world including yourself. In other words, there are demonstrable, consistent, and objective consequences for various actions taken by and on things which are perceived to exist in the external world unlike things which only exist as mental concepts. Under this revised understanding, you can subdivide “truth� into three categories: Metaphysical truth, Conceptual truth, and Empirical truth.

The “Empirical� truth is represented by the observable apple which experiences predictable and objective consequences for actions taken on it. Because you can observe the apple either through direct empirical observations with your senses or through indirect empirical observations using reliable technology which functions to extend or amplify your senses (like a mass spectrometer or a microscope), it is possible to know you are not just imagining an apple. Furthermore, because the observed objective consequences (empirical evidence) of throwing an object at another object have been consistent in the external world, it is possible to reliably predict the consequences of throwing an apple at your window. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to predict the apple would suddenly stop in midair before hitting the window because you have no empirical evidence of apples or other similar objects having ever behaved in that way before.

The imaginary apple from the example illustrates “Conceptual� truth. While the imaginary apple does not empirically exist in the same way as an observable apple does at the grocery store, you can at least know the imaginary apple exists as a true concept. This is because the apple you are imagining is a conceptual representation of something already known to exist. In other words, the imaginary apple is supported by “implicit empirical� evidence. However, the conceptual version of the apple which only exists in your imagination cannot be substituted for the apple which empirically exists at the grocery store. You cannot gain nutrients by eating an imaginary apple. Similarly, just because you can imagine a window being damaged by throwing an apple at it does not indicate such an event must have occurred or will occur. The only way to personally know a window was damaged by an apple is to obtain direct or indirect empirical evidence from the event itself. Meanwhile, your prior experience with the consistent and objective consequences of throwing solid objects as glass objects provides sufficient implicit empirical evidence for you to know it is at least conceptually possible for a window to be damaged by throwing an apple at it. Therefore, you can know the claim that the window will brake if you throw an apple at it is at least conceptually true. On the other hand, your ability to imagine an apple stopping in midair just before impacting the window does not imply such an event is conceptually possible. Since you have no implicit empirical evidence of an apple or any other solid object stopping in midair after being thrown, you cannot know the possibility exists. As such, the conceptual claim that an apple can stop in midair after it was thrown could not be validated as conceptually true.

If an eyewitness claimed to have observed someone damage a window by throwing an apple at it, you cannot personally know the event occurred exactly as described just because the eyewitness’s testimony was found to be compelling or credible. Since testimonial evidence represents someone else’s memory of a perceived event, it only exists in the mind of the eyewitness and must be classified as conceptual evidence. You did not directly or indirectly observe the event yourself to know the claim is empirically true. However, empirical data from similar events you have previously observed demonstrates that an impact from an object (like an apple) on another object (like a window) consistently produces catastrophic results for one or both objects. You could also reproduce the event exactly as described with an apple and a window to observe that the empirical results are consistent with the eyewitness testimony. Therefore, even though you were not on scene at the time the reported event occurred, the implicit empirical evidence allows you to know the claim is at least conceptually true. Consequently, you would be justified in accepting the eyewitness’s testimony as conceptual evidence to support your confidence in the belief that the event occurred. Unfortunately, your high level of confidence in the belief would still not qualify as knowledge that the claim is empirically true.

Now, imagine someone presents you with an ancient manuscript that claims over 100 ancient eyewitnesses from the legendary city of Atlantis previously observed an apple stop in midair after it was thrown. Compelling as this information may be, these ancient testimonies would still be classified as conceptual evidence for the same reasons already discussed. However, in this scenario, let’s presume various archaeological discoveries of an ancient civilization from the time and place the city of Atlantis is thought to have existed are offered in support of the claim. Unfortunately, archaeological artifacts only serve as empirical evidence for the existence of Atlantis and not for the extraordinary event which was claimed to have occurred there. Nevertheless, you can determine if the extraordinary claim has implicit empirical support to know if it could at least be conceptually true. Unlike the previous example, though, this extraordinary claim cannot be reproduced to know if such an event is possible. No matter how many times you throw an apple, it never stops in midair. Logically, this limitation not only prohibits you from personally knowing if the reported event is conceptually true but would make it irrational for you to believe it was even conceptually possible.

To be clear, the possibility of “supernatural� intervention is not being arbitrarily dismissed here, but supernatural claims require their own objective verification before they can serve as explanations. Unfortunately, every attempt to objectively verify a supernatural claim thus far has failed because it either lacked reproducible evidence or was superseded by a verified natural explanation. Even when there are no known natural explanations, it would be premature to conclude a supernatural cause is the best explanation until it can be verified as a possible candidate. The proposition that invisible fairies used their magic to interfere with the trajectory of the apple to make it appear as if it stopped in midair is not a viable candidate hypothesis even though it offers an explanation where no natural explanation currently exists. Likewise, the proposition that the apple appeared to stop in midair after it encountered a temporary supernatural force-field also serves as an explanation yet is equally inadmissible as a candidate hypothesis. This is because it is impossible to falsify either supernatural claim. As such, there is no way to know which supernatural explanation is superior to the other since neither can be ruled out. Furthermore, there is no mechanism by which you can rule out the possibility that some natural explanation does exist but has yet to be discovered.

On the other hand, if you have ever observed and understood how illusions occur, then that experience and knowledge will serve as conceptual and implicit empirical evidence for the alternative claim which suggests large groups of people can misperceive an event. Illusions can occur naturally as is the case for mirages and can also result from natural invisible forces like magnetism. Of course, a skilled illusionists can also artificially cause large groups of people to misperceive an event using “sleight of hand� techniques or clever applications of technology. Although you could not know if this alternative explanation for the reported claim is empirically true, it is at least conceptually possible for those ancient eyewitnesses to have misperceived the event in such a way that it appeared to them as though an apple stopped in midair after it was thrown. If someone could demonstrate how the misperception could occur, then that demonstration would serve to validate the misperception hypothesis as conceptually true. No matter how implausible it might seem, the misperception claim should be preferred over the supernatural claim since it can be replicated either naturally or artificially.

“Metaphysical� truth, meanwhile, is represented by the absolute reality of the observable apple and everything else you perceive as existing in the external world. If the apple is just a sophisticated virtual component of an elaborately simulated environment which your senses interpret as an external world, then that would be the metaphysical truth under those circumstances. Conversely, if the apple and everything else in the observable external world absolutely exists independent of your perception of them, then that would be the metaphysical truth. However, as previously demonstrated, the unresolvable problem of hard solipsism makes it impossible for you to know if the apple exists as part of an elaborate virtual world your mind interprets as an external reality or exists independently of your perception of it.

At best, you can evaluate the logical consistency of a metaphysical claim about the apple’s absolute reality from a philosophical perspective to determine if it could at least be conceptually possible, but no quantity or quality of valid philosophical arguments will ever demonstrate the metaphysical truth of the apple’s existence. For instance, it is valid to argue that it is logically possible for the apple and everything else you perceive as existing in the external world to be part of an elaborate simulation, but the problem of hard solipsism still prohibits you from validating if the claim is metaphysically true. It is pragmatic to realize, though, that regardless of what you believe about the metaphysical truth of the observable apple, the empirical consequences of throwing that apple at your window in the reality you experience are still predictable and knowable. In other words, conceptual and empirical truths which can be known are all that is needed to inform your decisions in the reality you perceive even without having access to metaphysical truths.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Using gluttony as an example, is it true that gluttony will objectively result in negative consequences to the glutton's health? Yes.

Is it true that gluttony is immoral? That answer depends on how your epistemology defines morality.

I disagree and your very top line helps us understand why.

You are correct, gluttony would be known to be wrong because of science/fact/truth because objective negative consequences. Again, this has nothing to do with religion.

A pet peeve of mine is people who try to claim a Christian only believes something because their Bible tells them so. LOL!

Something is not right/wrong because the Church says it is right/wrong, rather the Church declares something right/wrong because it IS right/wrong and something all men can know via observation and acknowledgment of the way the world works.

If your epistemology defines moral truth as that which corresponds with the Bible's moral prescriptions, then it is true that gluttony is immoral because it is condemned in the scriptures. If your epistemology defines moral truth to be that which maximizes well-being and minimizes harm for the most people, than it is true that gluttony is immoral because consuming an excessive amounts of a limited quantity of food deprives other people from their fair share.

What you are suggesting is the ‘ole “what’s true for you, is not necessarily true for me�, but such a statement is illogical. Truth is truth. If rape is wrong, then rape is wrong. It is illogical to argue it is wrong for you, but not for me because I don’t think/believe it is wrong. That’s moral relativism, the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which is what you are suggesting and which is an illogical position. It’s actually self refuting.

Joe: There is no such thing as truth.
Sue: Is that true?

If your epistemology defines moral truth to be that which provides personal pleasure regardless of the consequences to your overall well-being or the well-being of others, then it is not true that gluttony is immoral.

Wrong. It just means the person saying this is getting it wrong. It means they are using an incorrect/invalid moral code. Eating or drinking more than man needs is wrong for all men, because it can be known that it is not in man’s best interest to be gluttonous. This is something that can be observed and acknowledged and can be demonstrated via science/research/facts.

Science, research, and facts only demonstrate the empirical and conceptual truth that gluttony will negatively impact a person's health; not that it is true that gluttony is immoral unless we define moral truth to include healthy living (which many people do). However, if someone doesn't perceive healthy eating habits as having anything to do with morality, then by what objective standard should they be convinced to believe it is true that gluttony is immoral? If you say God is the basis of objective morality, then morality is subject to God's opinion of what is right and wrong by definition. Therefore, also by definition, a morality grounded in God would be subjective; not objective.

As best I can deduce (and I could be mistaken about this), the only way for an objective morality to exist is for it to be an emergent property from some undiscovered law of physics acting on conscious minds. Otherwise, any moral law dictated from a conscious mind (even the mind of a God) is subject to the opinion of that mind rather than moral laws objectively existing independent of any conscious mind's subjective opinion. For this reason, we cannot say gluttony is objectively immoral even if we can logically deduce that it is objectively unhealthy.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 102 by bluegreenearth]

Soto sum up, if someone wanted to worship God in a way that is acceptable to Him (God) where would they have to look for reliable information as to how this should be done?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 102 by bluegreenearth]

So, to sum up, if someone wanted to worship God in a way that is acceptable to Him (God) where would they have to look for reliable information as to how this should be done?

You question assumes a God exists and wants you to worship her / him/ it. Before you begin looking for reliable information as to how to properly worship a God, you must first develop a reliable and objective method for determining if a God exists. Until such a method is validated, the only intellectually honest position available to you is agnosticism.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 102 by bluegreenearth]

So, to sum up, if someone wanted to worship God in a way that is acceptable to Him (God) where would they have to look for reliable information as to how this should be done?

You question assumes a God exists and wants you to worship her / him/ it.

Yes it most certainly does. On the presumption that God exists and expects to be worshipped, how would you answer the question?

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Your self-awareness and sensory experiences are limited to that which corresponds with the reality you perceive.

Yep, right back at ya.

If your metaphysical reality is something different from the reality you perceive, then knowledge of that absolute truth is inaccessible to you. However, your self-awareness and sensory experiences do enable you to distinguish imagined things (the conceptual) from observable things (the empirical) within the boundaries of what is objectively verifiable. For example, when you imagine yourself eating an apple like the one you observed at the grocery store, your senses do not detect the existence of an apple in your external reality as they would for an apple you purchased at the grocery store. You can also imagine yourself throwing an apple at your glass window and predict what your senses would observe if such an event actually took place. Conversely, taking the action of actually throwing the apple you purchased from the grocery store at your glass window will result in observable and objective consequences your senses will definitely distinguish as not imaginary. This is not only the case for apples and windows but for everything observable in the external world including yourself. In other words, there are demonstrable, consistent, and objective consequences for various actions taken by and on things which are perceived to exist in the external world unlike things which only exist as mental concepts. Under this revised understanding, you can subdivide “truth� into three categories: Metaphysical truth, Conceptual truth, and Empirical truth.

Not everything can be scientifically measured, but that does not negate truth. This can be true here on earth (you cannot measure the love I have for my child) and obviously you cannot scientifically measure the supernatural. Science is based on the natural realm.

The “Empirical� truth is represented by the observable apple which experiences predictable and objective consequences for actions taken on it. Because you can observe the apple either through direct empirical observations with your senses or through indirect empirical observations using reliable technology which functions to extend or amplify your senses (like a mass spectrometer or a microscope), it is possible to know you are not just imagining an apple.

Sure, an apple is a tangible earthly object. Gets trickier trying to use natural earthly means to measure supernatural things. We can’t use the same means of measurement because supernatural things aren’t subject to the laws of nature.

If an eyewitness claimed to have observed someone damage a window by throwing an apple at it, you cannot personally know the event occurred exactly as described just because the eyewitness’s testimony was found to be compelling or credible.

True. But you also cannot know the eyewitness did not see a person damage the window. So, we might start asking some questions. Is this eye witness a sane, rational human being? Is there some motive he has for saying something that might not be true? Has he said untrue things in the past? How much is he willing to stake on insisting he witnessed the event? Stuff like that.

Since testimonial evidence represents someone else’s memory of a perceived event, it only exists in the mind of the eyewitness

Unless it doesn’t. Unless the event did happen, exactly as the eye witness testified, but only he saw it.

Unfortunately, your high level of confidence in the belief would still not qualify as knowledge that the claim is empirically true.

Sure, human beings operate with a little faith all the time. It is actually rational and reasonable to do so.

Now, imagine someone presents you with an ancient manuscript that claims over 100 ancient eyewitnesses from the legendary city of Atlantis previously observed an apple stop in midair after it was thrown. Compelling as this information may be, these ancient testimonies would still be classified as conceptual evidence for the same reasons already discussed.

Sure, but again we ask questions. Do the dates, names, places mentioned in the manuscript line up with what we do know? Again, what can we know from historical record. What can we know from human nature. Human beings aren’t inclined to put themselves out there and risk something for a lie.

However, in this scenario, let’s presume various archaeological discoveries of an ancient civilization from the time and place the city of Atlantis is thought to have existed are offered in support of the claim. Unfortunately, archaeological artifacts only serve as empirical evidence for the existence of Atlantis and not for the extraordinary event which was claimed to have occurred there.

So, it’s something then? And certainly adds to the credibility.

Nevertheless, you can determine if the extraordinary claim has implicit empirical support to know if it could at least be conceptually true. Unlike the previous example, though, this extraordinary claim cannot be reproduced to know if such an event is possible. No matter how many times you throw an apple, it never stops in midair.

Right, unless we are talking about supernatural intervention that does not rely on natural laws.

Logically, this limitation not only prohibits you from personally knowing if the reported event is conceptually true but would make it irrational for you to believe it was even conceptually possible.

Nope. See response above. It is absolutely rational to think/believe our little world is not the only one – that things couldn’t possibly work in any other way than they do here on earth.

To be clear, the possibility of “supernatural� intervention is not being arbitrarily dismissed here, but supernatural claims require their own objective verification before they can serve as explanations. Unfortunately, every attempt to objectively verify a supernatural claim thus far has failed because it either lacked reproducible evidence or was superseded by a verified natural explanation.

Of course. Like I said you can’t measure the supernatural naturally.

Even when there are no known natural explanations, it would be premature to conclude a supernatural cause is the best explanation until it can be verified as a possible candidate. The proposition that invisible fairies used their magic to interfere with the trajectory of the apple to make it appear as if it stopped in midair is not a viable candidate hypothesis even though it offers an explanation where no natural explanation currently exists.

Sure it could be. Again, ask the right questions. Did one person see the apple stop mid air? Or have many people made the same claim? Were the people mentally unstable? Did they have ulterior motives? Did they go on to even lose their own lives insisting they saw this?

Likewise, the proposition that the apple appeared to stop in midair after it encountered a temporary supernatural force-field also serves as an explanation yet is equally inadmissible as a candidate hypothesis. This is because it is impossible to falsify either supernatural claim. As such, there is no way to know which supernatural explanation is superior to the other since neither can be ruled out. Furthermore, there is no mechanism by which you can rule out the possibility that some natural explanation does exist but has yet to be discovered.

Sure. So, again we use reason as far as it can take us, and then rely on faith. Human beings do this all the time. I can read a manual about how something works, but I guess you can say until I see it for myself, I can’t say for sure if it is true. But I believe the manual is credible so I take a leap of faith and proceed. That’s reasonable.

On the other hand, if you have ever observed and understood how illusions occur, then that experience and knowledge will serve as conceptual and implicit empirical evidence for the alternative claim which suggests large groups of people can misperceive an event. Illusions can occur naturally as is the case for mirages and can also result from natural invisible forces like magnetism. Of course, a skilled illusionists can also artificially cause large groups of people to misperceive an event using “sleight of hand� techniques or clever applications of technology. Although you could not know if this alternative explanation for the reported claim is empirically true, it is at least conceptually possible for those ancient eyewitnesses to have misperceived the event in such a way that it appeared to them as though an apple stopped in midair after it was thrown. If someone could demonstrate how the misperception could occur, then that demonstration would serve to validate the misperception hypothesis as conceptually true. No matter how implausible it might seem, the misperception claim should be preferred over the supernatural claim since it can be replicated either naturally or artificially.

Sure. No one likes charlatans and swindlers unless they are in some magic act. Most human beings are pretty skeptical. They might even be inclined not to believe something, even if they saw it with their own eyes, because they are convinced said thing is impossible. Humans are more likely to dismiss or excuse their experience and look to alternate explanations. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think the magician cut the lady in half and then put her back to together.

At best, you can evaluate the logical consistency of a metaphysical claim about the apple’s absolute reality from a philosophical perspective to determine if it could at least be conceptually possible, but no quantity or quality of valid philosophical arguments will ever demonstrate the metaphysical truth of the apple’s existence.

Yep, that’s what makes the supernatural so awesome. It always requires both reason and faith.


“There is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.� G.K. Chesterton

[bluegreenearth]

RightReason,

Not everything can be scientifically measured, but that does not negate truth. This can be true here on earth (you cannot measure the love I have for my child) and obviously you cannot scientifically measure the supernatural. Science is based on the natural realm.

Your objection conflates conceptual truth with empirical truth. Science measures empirical truth while love for a child is a conceptual truth. In fact, I may even go far as to suggest it might one day be possible to measure love using advanced medical technology which would then make it an empirical truth.

Sure, an apple is a tangible earthly object. Gets trickier trying to use natural earthly means to measure supernatural things. We can’t use the same means of measurement because supernatural things aren’t subject to the laws of nature.

Any claim about the supernatural falls under the category of Metaphysics. Metaphysical truths exist but are inaccessible to us and do nothing to inform our decisions in the reality we perceive.

True. But you also cannot know the eyewitness did not see a person damage the window. So, we might start asking some questions. Is this eye witness a sane, rational human being? Is there some motive he has for saying something that might not be true? Has he said untrue things in the past? How much is he willing to stake on insisting he witnessed the event? Stuff like that.

This still qualifies as conceptual from an outsiders perspective even if it might be empirical from the observers perspective. As such, an outsider will only be able to evaluate if the claim could be conceptually true and unable to determine if the claim is empirically true.

Unless it doesn’t. Unless the event did happen, exactly as the eye witness testified, but only he saw it.

See my response above.

Sure, human beings operate with a little faith all the time. It is actually rational and reasonable to do so.

Faith is justifiable if the claim is determined to be at least conceptually true, but faith would not justify people who say they can know the claim is empirically true. Therefore, faith might only permit the acquisition of conceptual knowledge; not empirical knowledge.

Sure, but again we ask questions. Do the dates, names, places mentioned in the manuscript line up with what we do know? Again, what can we know from historical record. What can we know from human nature. Human beings aren’t inclined to put themselves out there and risk something for a lie.

Same response as earlier; would still only qualify as conceptual from the perspective of an outsider. This doesn't imply the claim is false but sets limits to its reliability. Asking such questions might help us to justify a greater degree of confidence if it indicates the claim could be conceptually true but wouldn't demonstrate the claim is empirically true.

However, in this scenario, let’s presume various archaeological discoveries of an ancient civilization from the time and place the city of Atlantis is thought to have existed are offered in support of the claim. Unfortunately, archaeological artifacts only serve as empirical evidence for the existence of Atlantis and not for the extraordinary event which was claimed to have occurred there.

[So, it’s something then? And certainly adds to the credibility.

Yes. The archaeological evidence would lend credibility to the claim that Atlantis existed but not much additional credibility to the extraordinary claim about the apple.

Right, unless we are talking about supernatural intervention that does not rely on natural laws

.

Again, claims about the existence of anything supernatural are classified as metaphysical. Metaphysical truths exist, but the inescapable problem of hard solipsism makes it impossible for us to acquire metaphysical knowledge beyond that of our own self-awareness.

Logically, this limitation not only prohibits you from personally knowing if the reported event is conceptually true but would make it irrational for you to believe it was even conceptually possible.

Nope. See response above. It is absolutely rational to think/believe our little world is not the only one – that things couldn’t possibly work in any other way than they do here on earth.

Your objection conflates the metaphysical with the conceptual. A conceptual truth could potentially describe a metaphysical truth, but we have no mechanism by which to discover if a conceptual truth is also metaphysically true. The objection also exposes your misunderstanding of how conceptual truths are validated. Before we can know if it is conceptually possible for an apple to stop in midair, there must be some implicit empirical basis by which the possibility is demonstrated. Once we've observed an apple stop in midair to establish an empirical baseline, then we can know it is conceptually possible for such an event to have occurred in the distant past or for such an event to occur again in the future. Without that empirical baseline, how could we presume to know what is conceptually possible or impossible? In other words, we aren't making a positive claim that it is conceptually impossible for an apple to stop in midair; only that the lack of an implicit empirical basis for the claim doesn't allow us to know if it is conceptually possible or impossible. We might say it could be metaphysically possible for an apple to stop in midair, but there is no way for us to know if it is metaphysically true or to even calculate a probability. However, the empirical baseline we do have for apples allows to estimate that the conceptual probability that an apple stopped in midair or will stop in midair is close to zero.

Of course. Like I said you can’t measure the supernatural naturally.

Agreed. It is currently the case that supernatural claims are, indeed, metaphysical claims and not measurable. However, I must concede that we can't yet conclude that it will never be possible to demonstrate the supernatural exists and measure it or demonstrate that it doesn't exist; only that we can't currently confirm or reject the existence of anything supernatural. We just don't know if the supernatural is even conceptually possible.

Sure it could be. Again, ask the right questions. Did one person see the apple stop mid air? Or have many people made the same claim? Were the people mentally unstable? Did they have ulterior motives? Did they go on to even lose their own lives insisting they saw this?

Same response as earlier; regardless of the testimonial evidence's quality, it is still classified as conceptual evidence. This is because, from an outsiders perspective, we did not directly observe the event and are relying upon the fallible sensory perceptions and memories of other people. Therefore, conceptual evidence cannot ever be considered reliable to the same degree as empirical evidence.

Sure. So, again we use reason as far as it can take us, and then rely on faith. Human beings do this all the time. I can read a manual about how something works, but I guess you can say until I see it for myself, I can’t say for sure if it is true. But I believe the manual is credible so I take a leap of faith and proceed. That’s reasonable.

This is an issue with epistemology that I will respond to in a separate post.

Sure. No one likes charlatans and swindlers unless they are in some magic act. Most human beings are pretty skeptical. They might even be inclined not to believe something, even if they saw it with their own eyes, because they are convinced said thing is impossible. Humans are more likely to dismiss or excuse their experience and look to alternate explanations. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think the magician cut the lady in half and then put her back to together.

From your response here, I assume this means you are in agreement with at least that portion of my commentary?

Yep, that’s what makes the supernatural so awesome. It always requires both reason and faith.

If I may add to your response, "It always requires both reason and faith" to believe a supernatural claim is true even if it impossible to know if it true.

“There is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.� G.K. Chesterton

[/quote]

Nothing I've expounded here prohibits speculation as what might be metaphysically true. I've placed no such restrictions on myself or anyone else; only on what intellectual honesty demands from us with respect to empirical and conceptual knowledge claims.

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

I may even go far as to suggest it might one day be possible to measure love using advanced medical technology which would then make it an empirical truth.

My point is sounds like you’re saying unless we can measure it, it isn’t true. That’s silly. We may not have the technology to measure something, but that doesn’t mean therefore it doesn’t exist.

It reminds me of my mother’s generation when they stopped breastfeeding their babies because the feminist pushed bottle feeding as freedom for mothers. Women all over, even per their doctor’s suggestion, gave their babies formula. My mother-in-law and many other women ahead of their times said, no – we’re pretty sure breastfeeding is best. And what do you know a generation later the science reveals what many mothers already knew – formula isn’t as good as breastfeeding – breast milk is best! Was it not best until it could be proven? May I suggest there are some truths some of us are aware of that it might take others a little more time to figure out.

Quote:
Sure, an apple is a tangible earthly object. Gets trickier trying to use natural earthly means to measure supernatural things. We can’t use the same means of measurement because supernatural things aren’t subject to the laws of nature.


Any claim about the supernatural falls under the category of Metaphysics. Metaphysical truths exist but are inaccessible to us and do nothing to inform our decisions in the reality we perceive.

Ha, ha, ha . . . I think your do nothing conclusion is itself unscientific.

Quote:
True. But you also cannot know the eyewitness did not see a person damage the window. So, we might start asking some questions. Is this eye witness a sane, rational human being? Is there some motive he has for saying something that might not be true? Has he said untrue things in the past? How much is he willing to stake on insisting he witnessed the event? Stuff like that.


This still qualifies as conceptual from an outsiders perspective even if it might be empirical from the observers perspective. As such, an outsider will only be able to evaluate if the claim could be conceptually true and unable to determine if the claim is empirically true.


Quote:
Unless it doesn’t. Unless the event did happen, exactly as the eye witness testified, but only he saw it.


See my response above.

See mine. Here was your original statement:
“Since testimonial evidence represents someone else’s memory of a perceived event, it only exists in the mind of the eyewitness�

So, like I said, unless it doesn’t. If the event actually occurred, then it doesn’t only exist in the mind of the eyewitness – it actually exists.

Quote:
Sure, but again we ask questions. Do the dates, names, places mentioned in the manuscript line up with what we do know? Again, what can we know from historical record. What can we know from human nature. Human beings aren’t inclined to put themselves out there and risk something for a lie.


Same response as earlier; would still only qualify as conceptual from the perspective of an outsider. This doesn't imply the claim is false but sets limits to its reliability.

Sure. And also eliminates some limits to its reliability. Works both ways.

Asking such questions might help us to justify a greater degree of confidence if it indicates the claim could be conceptually true but wouldn't demonstrate the claim is empirically true.

It also does not prove that it is not true.

Quote:
Quote:
However, in this scenario, let’s presume various archaeological discoveries of an ancient civilization from the time and place the city of Atlantis is thought to have existed are offered in support of the claim. Unfortunately, archaeological artifacts only serve as empirical evidence for the existence of Atlantis and not for the extraordinary event which was claimed to have occurred there.


[So, it’s something then? And certainly adds to the credibility.


Yes. The archaeological evidence would lend credibility to the claim that Atlantis existed

Right. So, like I said, that’s something.

Quote:
Right, unless we are talking about supernatural intervention that does not rely on natural laws
.

Again, claims about the existence of anything supernatural are classified as metaphysical. Metaphysical truths exist

Thank you. I agree.

the inescapable problem of hard solipsism makes it impossible for us to acquire metaphysical knowledge beyond that of our own self-awareness.

Sure, but to expect to be able to measure the metaphysical means you are setting yourself up for never knowing, which is too bad. This is where faith comes in – understanding it’s ok for some things to not be fully understood. It probably means they are bigger than we are. That they are outside of our world and laws. What it does not mean is they don’t exist.


“The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.� G.K. Chesterton

Without that empirical baseline, how could we presume to know what is conceptually possible or impossible?

Faith and reason.

the empirical baseline we do have for apples allows to estimate that the conceptual probability that an apple stopped in midair or will stop in midair is close to zero.

Making it all the more cool and awesome when people say they saw it.

I must concede that we can't yet conclude that it will never be possible to demonstrate the supernatural exists and measure it or demonstrate that it doesn't exist; only that we can't currently confirm or reject the existence of anything supernatural.

Right. So, just because a thousand years ago we didn’t have the technology to prove the world was not flat, does not mean that people should not have acted as if it weren’t. As we’ve learned from my mother-in-law sometimes it is good to do what we find reasonable and logical and believe by faith and be patient in allowing science to catch up to us.

Therefore, conceptual evidence cannot ever be considered reliable to the same degree as empirical evidence.

Of course not in some scientific study. But you better believe if a good friend of mine, who I have known and respect tells me something, I have no reason to doubt him. In fact, it would be unreasonable to do so.

Quote:
Sure. No one likes charlatans and swindlers unless they are in some magic act. Most human beings are pretty skeptical. They might even be inclined not to believe something, even if they saw it with their own eyes, because they are convinced said thing is impossible. Humans are more likely to dismiss or excuse their experience and look to alternate explanations. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think the magician cut the lady in half and then put her back to together.


From your response here, I assume this means you are in agreement with at least that portion of my commentary?

Yes, of course, but I think you misinterpret your own commentary. The point is you aren’t telling any of us anything we don’t already know. And like I said, human beings are by nature pretty skeptical. So, given that, it is funny that you attempt to suggest Christians believe things as true that aren’t true. We don’t tend to just believe something because we read about it in some old book. You might want to investigate that there might be a little more to it than that. Anyone who reduces Christian faith to something like that is in my opinion the one that is being intellectually dishonest and writing off their fellow man.

Quote:
Yep, that’s what makes the supernatural so awesome. It always requires both reason and faith.


If I may add to your response, "It always requires both reason and faith" to believe a supernatural claim is true even if it impossible toknow if it true.

Yeah sure, I have no problem with that, if by impossible to know you mean impossible according to earthly scientific means. It isn’t impossible to know by using ones reason and faith.

I've placed no such restrictions on myself or anyone else; only on what intellectual honesty demands from us with respect to empirical and conceptual knowledge claims.

If you say so. But in using my reason, I might call into question your ulterior motives, preconceptions, assumptions regarding religious faith, etc. in pointing out the obvious – basically that we can’t scientifically measure the supernatural. I’m pretty sure most Christians understand this and we are ok with this. It is you who seems to not be ok with that.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 102 by bluegreenearth]

Yes it most certainly does. On the presumption that God exists and expects to be worshipped, how would you answer the question?

Since I would have to arbitrarily presume a God exists in order to answer the question, I would have to presume that any arbitrary response could be constructed to fit whichever imaginary God I've presumed to exist. For instance, if I were to presume Jesus to be the God that exists, then I would have to presume the Bible contains the most reliable answer to that question. If I were to presume Sauron was the God that exists, then I would presume The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien is the most reliable answer to that question. If I were to presume I was the God that exists, it would be a trick question because I would never be so immoral as to require anyone to worship me even if I was their divine creator.