He can claim that an assumption reflects reality without checking.
This is the reverse of when bsengstock20 said to someone, ‘You can’t do that.’ I pointed out that they can and that he had no power or authority to stop them from doing that. At best, all he could do was to disagree with their reasons for doing so.
If my logic holds up here, then the reverse must be true. You can’t say to bsengstock20 that he can’t do that. But you can say that you disagree with his reasons for doing so. Which, of course, you’ve just done. No problem there.
In the same spirit of equality between members, then I submit that we do have a Mexican stand off.
Even if the burden of proof is on him, the stand off between him and us comes with our disagreement with him as to what constitutes proof. He will not accept empirical verification of his argument and we not accept his modal verification of it. That’s your stand off, right there.
Was there any progress made in getting him to climb down from his position and have we been shifted from our position by anything he’s said? Nope. It’s a stand off.
Of course, I can claim that rainbow farting flying mermaids exist, and you can object with a “You can’t do that!”, whereby I can counter “Yes, I can!”. And you will have no power to stop me. I made a statement about reality with my claim, and I can indeed do that. However, the burden of proof is on me to prove it or bring forth evidence to make it probable or likely, not on you to disprove it. And therein lies the crucial difference and the main point. Bsengstock20 attempted to turn the burden of proof around, so that he could get away with (IMHO) outrageous claims.
Disagree. There is only a standoff in the sense that bsengstock20 stubbornly tries to get away with claims (empirical data does not trump assertions) by turning the burden of proof around. He makes claims, but does not bring forth evidence. He can make all the modality claims (or whatever he wants to call it) he wants, but he cannot demand that they are accepted without showing that they correspond with reality. The moment he make statements about Nature and reality, the litmus test is clear - does it agree with empirical data? If it does: OK. If it doesn’t, not OK. Or in short: Shit in, shit out. Data is king.
The two coloured pathways (red and brown) both use the same logics blob, but only one of them can with any confidence claim that the conclusion says something about reality. The dashed lines illustrate how the conclusions can feed back into our knowledge about reality or into not reality (a.k.a. shit).
It doesn’t matter WHERE the burden of proof lies. That’s not the stand off I’m referring to.
The stand off I’m talking about is what is considered to BE the proof.
We require empirical evidence of bsengstock20 to support his claims. But he claims that modal logic is its own evidence and therefore, according to him, he has already satisfied that requirement of burden of proof.
Naturally, because we do not accept his circular claim (that modal logic is its own proof) we continue to ask him for empirical evidence so that he can satisfy OUR understanding of the burden of proof.
But according to HIS understanding of the burden of proof, he has already given it.
He has not linked his claims to reality, therefore they are not about reality until he does. I can claim any shit I want and claim it is about reality, but it is shit until I show that it connects to reality. It doesn’t make them less shit if I just make further assertions that they are true. Without links to reality, assertions are just fantasy.
Compare this to an induction proof of mathematics:
Let n be an integer and F(n) a statement. Assume that we can show that if F(n) is true, then F(n+1) is also true. So far so good. But we can only show that F has merit if we can also show that F is true for some n, e.g. n=1. If F(1) is true, then we have also shown that F(2) is true, and that F(3) is true, and so on. Where bsengstock20 fails is that he can not show the analog of the last part, namely that F is true for some n.
the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
the state or quality of having existence or substance.
The claim here is that a deity exists, so @bsengstock20 will have to support that claim with something more than subjective assumption. Trying to pretend that part of reality involves things empirical evidence cannot detect, is a claim, that would itself require sufficient evidence. It is also a pretty obvious attempt by religions to ringfence their magic from objective scrutiny, and of on occasion to reverse the burden of proof.
We don’t just say this, it is an objective fact that methods like science use empirical data and their results are used in countless practical applications that would not work if they did not reflect objective reality/
Great, use modal logic without any empirical data and when it can demonstrate the sort of successes science has, he can come back and I will acknowledge he was right. Until then logic is a toll used to quickly identify weak or poorly reasoned arguments, like Gödel’s, that an argument is logically sound is a bare minimum, if it contains unevidenced assumptions as Gödel’s does, then it fails even that bare minimum.
I find that highly dubious sorry, for the reasons stated. When logic can cure or eradicate a disease or fly planes reliably to their destinations, without any recourse to empirical data or objectively verifiable evidence, and do so as successfully as methods like science, then I will accept they have some sort of parity.
Then all his work will be before him of course, as he will still have to present a logical argument for any deity that doesn’t simply make unevidenced assumptions, in order to define it into existence using question begging, as Gödel’s does.
Just so, that’s all I have seen offered.
Exactly so, making vague and ill defined assumptions and then drawing conclusions from them may work if people are already biased in favour of that conclusion, they do not reflect objective reality.
Again this is spot on the money, why if this proof is at all compelling aren’t theists the world over, not mention philosophers of all stripes saying so, why instead has the argument been widely criticised for the reasons already stated?
The inference is hard to miss, and yet we are to believe @bsengstock20 missed it, indeed is still missing it even after posters have pointed it out.
And I’m not in dispute with you. But nor am I agreeing with bsengstock20 either.
The stand off happens when what you consider to be reality and what he considers to be reality do not agree. You say that he has to link his claims to reality. I agree. He does. But if he does as C.S. Lewis did and consider this world to be a shadow of the true reality, then he doesn’t and cannot link this lower, lesser reality to a higher and greater one to validate his claims.
The lesser and lower realm of the empirical cannot be used to validate the higher and greater realm of the modal. That is his claim and his position.
However, there is a way to resolve this to our satisfaction. But not to his.
Consider the case of the YEC Christian who relies upon Creation ‘Science’ to validate his belief in a literal, Biblical, 6 day creation and an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old. If asked for a Creation ‘science’ explanation for how computers, lasers and nuclear reactors work they can’t give it. That’s not within Creation ‘Science’s’ remit. It explains nothing about the world around us and how things work. It was only formulated to do one thing. Validate the Bible.
So a YEC doesn’t use Creation ‘Science’ in any other part of their lives except when it comes to their faith. Not in their work, their homes, their cars, their travels… nothing. They therefore live at odds with their beliefs. They don’t practice what they preach. They are hypocrites.
Now apply the same line to bsengstock20. Does he use modal logic in his home life, at work, when travelling by car, plane or train? The answer is no. He admitted to being an amateur metaphysician and so its likely that he only uses modal logic for one thing. To validate and justify his beliefs, whatever they are. Just like the YEC and just as hypocritical. Not practicing what he preaches.
For me, and probably for you, this is evidence enough to have grave doubts about his claims.
However, according to bsengstock20, we are hopelessly mired in the lesser realm of empirical evidence and so this argument automatically fails.
Well of course he can, as can anyone, and anyone here is free to reject that as simple bias, and more importantly an unreliable method for determining the truth of claims.
I believe when this was said, it was not meant to be take literally, as I explain above he can of course make any claim he is minded to, but the pretence that he is making logically consistent arguments, let alone that they that are superior to methods using empirical data we can objectively verify, is going to be met with the derision such hubris deserves.
I think you mean a stalemate, not a Mexican standoff, but again I am dubious, I’d bet my house that when @bsengstock20 is sick he seeks the help of medical science, and that he uses countless technologies derived from empirical methods like science, like the computer he uses to post here for example, if I am to accept any sort of parity between such methods and logic alone, then I have already stated he must justify his claim that logic is superior with something more than hubris and subjective arguments.
Objective reality exists by definition, it can be measured and tested countless ways, science has done this, it is manifest in its successes, again see above my argument against @bsengstock20’s claim that modal logic alone is superior to this.
I missed that, did he do this in the public forum, or in a PM conversation?
That is filled with subjective claims.
Note the words “true reality” and the way the quote juxtaposes something, the irony of the inference is palpable surely?
This reality is true, and yet “lesser and lower” even as a bare claim it makes no sense.
The last part is simply what several posters have been objecting to from the first, he cannot objectively (my word) validate his claims, so why would anyone lend such claims any credence, other than simple bias, especially as one could believe anything if one accepts such claims as sufficient?
Indeed, but we did not seek him out to make claims, it was the other way around. I am interested only in the most reliable path to the truth, his biased satisfaction is irrelevant to that, and his hubris was hard to miss when he arrived, the bias was clear, but to everyone’s credit they took the time and trouble to carefully and critically examine his claims.
Agreed, and as I explained above, when @bsengstock20 can use logic alone, without any recourse to empirical methods like science to cure or eradicate a disease, or get a plane to fly reliably to its destination, then he can start amassing the successes to try and match science, when he’s done this much, then all he need do is demonstrate any deity or deities exist using logic. So far can do neither.
We don’t need any argument, the claim is his, he brought it here, that we have shown his arguments are unevidenced and flaws is not necessary, as the burden of proof remains entirely his.
Who says it is a lesser and lower realm, please evidence this claim. Now assuming anyone can do that, and I am dubious, they would then have all their work before them as far as demonstrating any deity exists. Even the word exist involves reflecting objective reality, by making unevidenced assertions that something “exists” beyond objective verification the word loses it’s literal meaning.
I don’t have any definitions, those are in the dictionary. That he denies or distorts these arbitrarily is of no more import than that flat earthers deny the rotundity of the earth, why would I care?
For typical Christians, this is based I think on a rejection of this reality is unacceptable to their idealism. A big revelation for me was just understanding that “shit happens” and it’s not personal or directed. The belief in a “higher reality” is just a childish desire for a place where “shit doesn’t happen”. Where everything goes your way, basically – it has no unexpected or unwanted outcomes.
We had many songs about how we were “strangers in a strange land”, “just passing through”, “this world is not my home”, etc. Everything was directed to a greater / ultimate reality that was always tantalizingly just the other side of the grave or the return of Jesus, whichever happened first.
When this is your mentality then it makes perfect sense to dismiss this reality is nothing more than a correctable inconvenience rather than what you have on your plate, like it or not.
Perhaps you are right and I probably did mean a stalemate, Sheldon.
If you read what I wrote to Get_off_my_lawn about how bsengstock20 lives, then you’ll see that you and I agree about what he does when he gets sick. His life does not line up with his claims about modal logic. However, he might counter that it shouldn’t be expected to. He gives the empirical its due, but holds that there is another, higher reality which it cannot describe, but which modal logic can. Thus, by looking at modal logic and not at his life, the god-like object inhabiting this higher reality is proven.
He would argue that his life CANNOT indicate, demonstrate or prove anything about this higher reality. Because his life takes place within the lower and lesser realm of the contingent and the provisional. He would therefore claim that his argument is therefore made and secure.
Who says it (the empirical realm of the contingent and the provisional) is a lesser and lower realm?
Bsengstock20 does. Would you like me to find where he does this and cite it?
You say that he has to link his claims to reality. I agree. He does. But if he does as C.S. Lewis did and consider this world to be a shadow of the true reality, then he doesn’t and cannot link this lower, lesser reality to a higher and greater one to validate his claims.
Above is the full quote, Sheldon.
I was replying to Get_off_my_Lawn, who wrote that bsengstock20 has to link his claims to reality.
And this ‘real life hasn’t begun yet’ idea that Christians love so much is the real explanation for the apparent actions of self-sacrifice sometimes displayed by them.
In reality they aren’t displaying tremendous self-sacrifice because all they are giving up is something they don’t consider to be properly real. Heaven is their true reality, so what does it matter if they lay down their mortal lives in acts of incredible self-sacrifice? They don’t believe that they’re losing much by doing so and they also believe that they are gaining everything if they do so.
Now, compare and contrast.
If an atheist lays down their life for someone else in an act of self-sacrifice then they are losing EVERYTHING, with no thought of reward and no expectation of a true, real life in heaven or anywhere else. For an atheist, this life is the true reality and it is all there is. Nothing else is real. Only this life is real.
THAT is real self-sacrifice. THAT is real courage. THAT is facing up to reality.
First, I’m not arguing it for him, CyberLN. I’m just going with the understanding that I’ve gleaned from his posts.
Second, like you and several others, I’d LOVE for him to return and do the arguing himself. He said to me that he hopes to do so. But that’s all I can report to you.
When will he be offering anything beyond subjective assertions to support that claim?
No it is not “proven” at all, it is claimed, Gödel’s ontological proof was never published by him or during his lifetime, and has been widely rejected, and the reasons have been given, unevidenced assumptions in the premises, that amount to question begging. One could define pretty much anything into existence in this way.
How convenient, the magic is real, but because it’s magic he can’t evidence it.
No thank you, I read it, it’s a bare subjective claim with more than a little hubris, I give it the same credence I do all such claims.
Well frankly, if I believe my positions to be true, why would I change them?
Because it’s a constricting model, Sheldon. If all theistic religions championed this model, most would find their deity model incompatible with Godel’s ontological model. This would lead to a systematic collapse of their religious tenants and dogmas.
