Educated Muslim Apologist.

Previous page 1 ... 5 6 7« Previous thread | Next thread »
- PhysMath
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #180 - February 23, 2015, 06:26 PM

Quote from: Dawahfilms on February 23, 2015, 06:18 PM
PysMath,

Before I came on here, ad homs were being thrown all over the place before even addressing my argument.

What need was there for posting YT videos, calling me mentally unstable, not even addressing me by my real name, etc.?

Where was the condemnation then?

The only people who have really attempted to address the argument (and even offer his own positive deconstructions) was Qtian.

Tu quoque now. Okay anyway, yes he did. Have you taken his arguments into consideration? Have you considered my comment on introducing a more statistical stance on certain premises?

One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #181 - February 23, 2015, 06:28 PM

PhysMath, after DawahFilms made his argument clearer to me (that it is an attack on scientism), I recognised that the previous objections were misdirected.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Dawahfilms
- Member
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #182 - February 23, 2015, 06:29 PM

PsyMath,

Hardly a Tu quo que. I was not saying it was WRONG as a result of hypocrisy...I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Condemn your own first before you want to condemn me for responding to it.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #183 - February 23, 2015, 06:37 PM

The gist of his argument (nuances aside), if I have understood it correctly:

- On Scientism, everything should be with reference to the scientism worldview.

- People can conceive of a transcendent reality, beyond the scope of scientism

- On Scientism, this transcendent reality should only be conceivable through the scope of scientism, as it is a meaningful statement.

- The fact that is that a transcendent reality which people can believe in is a metaphysical question, which is a defeater to the previous statement, as the transcendent reality that people can believe in , is beyond the scope of scientism.

(Please do correct me if I'm wrong)
He's not arguing that people can believe in God therefore God, rather that people can conceive of God as a metaphysical question, which is very surprising on scientism.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- PhysMath
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #184 - February 23, 2015, 06:37 PM

Well you obviously haven't considered the parameter of I did not see the personal attacks against you - they are just as wrong. If you were not justifying your own wrong by pointing out "my hypocrisy" then have the humility to apologise for the personal attack. If you were attempting to justify it then it is tu quoque.

One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
- PhysMath
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #185 - February 23, 2015, 06:41 PM

Quote from: Qtian on February 23, 2015, 06:37 PM
The gist of his argument (nuances aside), if I have understood it correctly:

- On Scientism, everything should be with reference to the scientism worldview.

- People can conceive of a transcendent reality, beyond the scope of scientism

- On Scientism, this transcendent reality should only be conceivable through the scope of scientism.

- The fact that is that a transcendent reality which people can believe in is a metaphysical question, which is a defeater to the previous statement, as the transcendent reality that people can believe in , is beyond the scope of scientism.

He's not arguing that people can believe in God therefore God, rather that people can conceive of God as a metaphysical question, which is very surprising on scientism.

But I don't understand why he's posing an argument which is already expressed a lot simpler?

One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #186 - February 23, 2015, 06:44 PM

It depends upon the above being an accurate representation of the argument. But either way, I'm not extremely interested in this thread anymore

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- captndisguise
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #187 - February 23, 2015, 07:06 PM

Someone correct me, but I have always understood 'scientism' in terms or epistemology rather than in terms of ontology (as dawahfilms seems to be treating it). I am also curious why he claims his argument, at least strictly, is not against naturalism but scientism instead. Does this mean he believes there is a naturalistic explanation for his premises?

I don't accept scientism either, but even when given scientism why should it be the case that, "transcendent reality should only be conceivable through the scope of scientism."

Unlike Naturalism, which is concerned about what exists, I have understood scientism as a means to knowledge i.e. a theory about what constitutes a "true" statement.

In that case, why should 'scientism' be opposed to anyone conceiving of any kind of reality? Given scientism, all one would say is that such statements that are "beyond" its scope are "false" statements because it doesn't meet the criterion for knowledge under scientism. This doesn't mean that one should not be able to conceive of statements/realities that would not meet the criterion for knowledge under scientism.

http://www.youtube.com/captaindisguise
http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/
http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/CaptainDG64

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" ~ Nietzsche
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #188 - February 23, 2015, 07:23 PM

Scientism taken literally is the statement that the only meaningful statements are "scientific" ones . Ergo, anything beyond the scope of scientism "isn't meaningful". Ironically, this very approach isn't scientific.

If one can make a metaphysical claim, that is meaningful (has meaning), then this is a problem for the above worldview, because scientism would claim that they aren't meaningful.

This is because you can't build a metaphysics on science alone, you can build an epistemology, but good luck getting an ontology. I don't actually think that DawahFilms is treating scientism as an ontology.

His premises do attempt to state that on scientism, only claims with reference to the scientism worldview are meaningful/coherent:

Quote
If all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world, then they must be made up of coherent experiences.

...

No number of coherent experiences can direct one to consider the possibility of something meaningful beyond said experiences.

Just to clarify what I mean by epistemology and ontology, ontology: what we know, epistemology: how we know what we know. Ontologies run into questions regarding the nature of being, questions of the form "why" (I.e. Why does God necessarily exist?) , whilst scientism would only deal with the "how".

So yeah, scientism is an epistemology as opposed to an ontology such as naturalism, but it still suffers from a big drawback in that the validation it so desperately seeks is external to its own mission statement.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #189 - February 23, 2015, 07:44 PM

Quote
"transcendent reality should only be conceivable through the scope of scientism."

I don't fully grasp it either. However, I don't really want to invest much more time discussing scientism at the present period.

Nevertheless, I am still waiting to see if my understanding of Dawahfilms' argument is correct.

Argumentation is useless, if both parties are operating upon differing interpretations of the same argument.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- moi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #190 - February 23, 2015, 07:48 PM

Let me chuck my oar in!

I think we have a scientific hypothesis that is actually falsifiable - goddidit.

Or in scientific language god caused it.

That is testable because we have a law to test it against - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. God doing stuff will effect something else - god will be in the equations and or the fingerprints of god will be traceable, even on a comet across the solar system, or the cosmic microwave background or a black hole or a brane or a quantum bouncing universe..

But nothing. Why God is hiding? But the assertions are that God has revealed himself.

Therefore we must conclude goddidit has no evidence, even of which god - I said earlier i prefer turtles and therefore formally propose the turtle god did it.

When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.

A.A. Milne,

"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
- PhysMath
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Educated Muslim Apologist.
Reply #191 - February 24, 2015, 12:06 PM

Goddidit isn't a scientific hypothesis it is a metaphysical statement.

Every action has an equal but opposite reaction but on different bodies is the entire Newton's third law and is a law of motion - it cannot be applied to thermodynamical systems in free space for instance, which we could argue God is.

Though maybe you were joking

One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
Previous page 1 ... 5 6 7« Previous thread | Next thread »