Evidentialism is an epistemological position.
We are all evidentialists, that doesn't convince me there is any value in epistemology.
Posts by Caedes
-
212Why Do You No Longer Believe in God?
by Tenacious ini know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
-
-
-
212
Why Do You No Longer Believe in God?
by Tenacious ini know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
-
-
Caedes
Not unless you consider epistemology "Tedious semantics". An odd postition for someone who enjoys evidence so much, but hey, philosophy isn't everyone's bag.
But epistemology isn't about evidence, after all pretty much all the evidence I have confirms that the world we live in is as it seems. The world responds in a logical and consistent fashion to the things I do and there is no advantage to assuming that I am in a matrix type environment being fooled (or a brain in a jar). Let's be honest if there were such evidence to be found I very much doubt it is going to be provided by an epistomologist, because I see no evidence that there is any predictive power or value in epistemology.
-
51
What is the best debate you've ever read on this board...
by The Rebel inwho won, and why?.
the rebel..
-
-
Caedes
This poster put his name and the date at the bottom, like a copyright. It was a good flow chart. There were a few messages saying 'thank you', 'well done' 'masterful use of logic', etc until another poster pipes up (sorry, can't remember their name either ) and points out that this logic was devised by a certain Greek philosopher (name?!) so the copyright should go.
Ah that would be me as the 'another poster'!
The other guy lost it a bit!
-
51
What is the best debate you've ever read on this board...
by The Rebel inwho won, and why?.
the rebel..
-
-
Caedes
Perhaps because theists generally don't have open minds, atheists can be persuaded by evidence. Admittedly we want hard empirical evidence which is a little thin on the ground for supernatural beings.
There is an important distinction between having a high standard of evidence required for extraordinary claims and believing anything just because someone makes a claim. I would argue that the former is far more open minded than the latter.
The more rational debates with people who don't claim a personal mental hotline to the creator of the universe tend to be more useful.
-
36
Super JW Cart
by M*A*S*H ini have a confession to make.
a strange urge is building in my brain... each time i see a jw literature cart on the street it builds.
it is becoming a stronger and stronger thought in my mind.
-
-
Caedes
I'll start getting the bail money together!
-
12
A Chance to Win a Lot of Money?
by The Searcher inthe u.k. is having a national referendum in 2017, to decide whether to remain in the european union or to abandon it.. in view of the total impotence and absence of agreement of eu governments to handle mass migration to mainland europe, my bet would be for a landslide vote to leave the e.u.
- if the referendum was held within the next 6-9 months.
will things get better before 2017?
-
-
Caedes
I have always been pro-European and I think it will be a landslide of votes to leave the EU. -
21
Theory of Evolution and humanity are moving in parallel, and in opposite direction too!
by iconoclastic inproponents of evolution theory was comfortable with their easiest method of induction that says something like this: i saw a blind man in the us, then in russia, then in australian, then in africa ..., hence all men are blind.
yet proofs are abundant for the decline (opposite of evolution) we experience globally!.
1) most humans declined into greed, the result of which is climate change which has the potential to wipe out all life from the earth.
-
-
Caedes
It's amazing that people put up a lot of posts covering every one of the OP's points and s/he doesn't bother to respond in any detail. -
21
Theory of Evolution and humanity are moving in parallel, and in opposite direction too!
by iconoclastic inproponents of evolution theory was comfortable with their easiest method of induction that says something like this: i saw a blind man in the us, then in russia, then in australian, then in africa ..., hence all men are blind.
yet proofs are abundant for the decline (opposite of evolution) we experience globally!.
1) most humans declined into greed, the result of which is climate change which has the potential to wipe out all life from the earth.
-
-
Caedes
Proponents of evolution theory was comfortable with their easiest method of induction that says something like this: "I saw a blind man in the US, then in Russia, then in Australian, then in Africa ..., hence all men are blind."
Evolutionary theory is one of the most proven scientific theories there are, it has proven consistant with pretty much all of of our scientific studies of biology. I am unclear exactly what you are trying to say with your quote since evolution says nothing of the kind, perhaps you could elaborate on what it is about evolution that you disagree with.
Yet proofs are abundant for the decline (opposite of evolution) we experience globally!
Decline in what? Living standards? No, those are up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
"The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare"
If you look at the referenced sources you will see a lot of green arrows showing how by any measure life is improving for the majority of people. Perhaps you could specify exactly what measure you think has gone down?
1) Most humans declined into greed, the result of which is climate change which has the potential to wipe out all life from the earth. July 2015 was the hottest month in recorded history.(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/july-2015-was-hottest-month-on-record-globally/) Global recession (another effect of greed) that started in 2008 is now all set to assume the size of a global tornado!
I would agree that we are all responsible for our response to global warming, I wouldn't agree that it is down to greed since I don't see that there is a clear link between the two at least at an individual level.
2) Religions (from religare, "reunite") declined into divisiveness!
Religions are as divisive as they have ever been, perhaps you could point to a period of history where religions where not stirring up hatred, war or trying to run the lives of people who either don't subscribe or subscribe to a different religion.
3) When people were told to sacrifice the beast called ego, they declined into the easier option of sacrificing a literal animal (followed by eating its flesh too)
Didn't the bible say that we could eat animals? Sounds like your religion is trying to sow the seeds of divisiveness to me.
4) Human body too is on the reverse gear with deadly disease being on the increase (https://agenda.weforum.org/2013/09/how-to-stop-the-rise-of-deadly-new-diseases/)
See my previous answer, if your suggestion were true then the human population should be decreasing surely? Perhaps you could tell us if the human population is decreasing or if it is in fact increasing massively?
5) Bible correctly foretold a global moral decline (the very opposite of evolution) in 2 Timothy 3:1-5
Global moral decline (the decline in crime in most western countries suggests that we are becoming more moral rather than less of course) is not the opposite of evolution, this suggests to me that you don't understand what the word evolution means in the context of biology. It doesn't mean improvement.
All the scientific achievements we have made so far is the result of various combinations we have tried with properties of various elements of nature, most of which came with their ill-effects too, thus neutralizing all the supposed benefits—hardly an evolution from good to better.
Science has pretty much eradicated polio and we can see the benefits of all sorts of technology and medicine. In the western world we dont have to worry about a small cut getting infected, surgery is relatively safe, we have clean water to drink, our food is safe to eat and we live long healthy lives. What are the side effects that wipe out those benefits? We don't have to go back that far back to see high mortality rates and unsafe living conditions for most people. It is interesting that you complain about science whilst sat at your computer, pampered and well fed, I would say that makes you a hypocrite.
This is the reason why we find some scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution.
Real scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology publish their work in peer reviewed scientific journals, there isn't a single peer-reviewed piece of work that disagrees with the fundamentals of evolution. The people you have found either do not work in the field and are thus unqualified to discuss evolution or are not scientists at all.
-
579
Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.
by The Rebel inso i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
-
-
Caedes
A) Because NASA are not funded to the same degree as they were in the sixties, not even taking into account inflation NASA has a budget less than the cost of the moon landings. You would have to increase the NASA budget tenfold to get to the sort of money they need to get to the moon. The cost in the sixties for the moon landing was $25Billion, NASAs entire budget this year was $18Billion.
B) Because it is a matter of public record that NASA is not funded to the same degree and hence is the sort of question that you could find the answer to yourself given a computer and five minutes.
In engineering you have three criteria cheap, accurate and on-time. You get to pick two so if you want it cheap and you don't want it to go wrong then it is going to take time.
Re-posted as the OP seems to have missed my answer to his/her question.
-
579
Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.
by The Rebel inso i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
-
-
Caedes
A) Because NASA are not funded to the same degree as they were in the sixties, not even taking into account inflation NASA has a budget less than the cost of the moon landings. You would have to increase the NASA budget tenfold to get to the sort of money they need to get to the moon. The cost in the sixties for the moon landing was $25Billion, NASAs entire budget this year was $18Billion.
B) Because it is a matter of public record that NASA is not funded to the same degree and hence is the sort of question that you could find the answer to yourself given a computer and five minutes.
In engineering you have three criteria cheap, accurate and on-time. You get to pick two so if you want it cheap and you don't want it to go wrong then it is going to take time.