It's about time we all understand the bible as what it really is: a collection of books that were written individually by different authors that had very different points of views about the figure of their "god". This authors were never "inspired" and their ignorance about the world is evident all over the bible.
Twisted...you must be a troll. But correct, there is NO debate, the bible is not "inspired". Btw did you have the sound off when you watched this lecture?
As you can see, Christians have no argument except (but the bible says the bible is true). I know for a fact because I used to be a devout Christian and they really have no intelligible arguments
the best Christian website to spread Christian love and expose how real Christians like to praise our almighty God in a good Christian way!!! Please visit.
So are you Christians going to actually provide an intelligible debate on his studies or just keep showing your inability to accept truth and reality? I'm tired of the fiction of religion...I applaud the Doc for being able to do what so many of the faith cannot (it was a difficult realization for me as well)
@twistedbydsign99 Christianity is up for mocking so long as xtians continue to push their agenda in a mythical god's name. xtians need to grow the F... up and back off from threatening people who have different world views than them.
Ehrman, 'Jesus interrupted', is great. also E.A.Wallis Budge, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), other great writings are by Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', sceptical Bible scholars: Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Victor J Stenger, Robert M Price, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Richard Carrier, David Mills, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
@zytigon While all the people you list are fine writers and certainly interesting & enlightening to read, don't confuse being a writer with being a scholar. Some are scholars but many on your list are not scholars by any definition. Scholarship is far more than doing some research and writing a book and getting it published. Scholarship employes a methodology. Ken Humphreys as an example, is not a scholar. Scholars don't have “Paypal Donate” buttons on their websites!!!
Suffering as a punishment for sin is trivial to prove wrong - what about innocents who suffer without having sinned? I.e.: a child born with spina bifida? Religions have to concoct these weird theories that make everyone a sinner from birth; it's absurd.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the testimony of man of christ is good! the testimony that god has given us, spirit, blood and water that flowed from out of the body of christ and unto the right side of the ark of the covenant hidden beneath the cross, where christ was crucified completed gods redemption plan. The resurrection is here! It is within the earth and it is infallible.
We don't need complex textual analysis to come to the conclusion that the Bible is not reliable. The fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth and that humans didn't even exist back then clearly demonstrates that the Bible is not historically accurate. Geez...
Whatever...Keep on your stubborness... And I want to make clear that I DO believe in "Jesus" (Not his name by the way) and his original teachings and message. I still believe that Erhman´s is right on target regarding his discoveries...peace to you...Pls do not bother to continue aswering me with your childish argumentation... Peace to you anyway...
The whole of Christianity is based on here say and stories and lies! It's shocking to see how anybody could believe in christianity after hearing ehrmans lectures!
@lidil100 Nobody is denying Jesus the son of Mary! Nobody is denying his initial message. What is all messed up is " is the revelation of Jesus the son of Mary is that the bible?"
The answer has to be NO unequivocally. If the bible is full of here say and stories then which bit is true about Jesus and what his ministry was about?
The problem that Christianity has is that dr ehrman is an academic. Hence all his work has references and is reviewed by his peers. You cannot argue with that. Christian apologists want to take the debate away by setting up you tube channels against ehrman. No references or peers needed. They then attack him on the sly!
I read God's Problem and could not put it down. It shines through that Bart Ehrman loves the human race. I cried reading his words it is clear he is filled with the love of God no matter if he calls himself an agnostic. He even said how could he give thanks for his food when so many are starving. Thank God for Ehrman he is sent to teach us. I appreciate his work and pray always for him to be restored to his faith in Jesus.
@merryvinbock I don't see Ehrman as my enemy. He is telling it as it is. If my faith is not strong enough to bear opposition then my faith is small indeed.
LOL "Thank God for Ehrman he is sent to teach us" WTF? Clearly the psychologists are right - people just DON'T change their minds now do they? Even after reading his books...
I personally agree with most of what Mr. Erhman has to say about this controversial issue. Not only that, but I really admire his boldness and his courage to stand out of the crowd, to point out what most Xtian believers -and scholars- are afraid or terrified to admit even in despite of the plain evidence presented so far. Truth is not always welcomed by those who pretend to defend its tenets.... These ones are still in bondage under heavy chains of ignorance, intolerance and fanaticism.
I have observed two kinds of people in these comments: 1. Many folks here appear to feel and be intimidated by Erhman´s conclusions: They are not really sure about the foundations of their Xtian beliefs...theirs is a hollow faith 2. Many folks here are delighted to read and hear that Mr. Erhman´s conlcusions seem to be irrefutable: most probably haven´t been believers at all in the bible, and this because they don´t want to abide by its moral principles of righteousness (sinners).
the bible has a lot of contradictions -- wow.. and still a lot of people will use faith to prove that the evidences are all wrong. it is even more complex to do the math.
unless you do the works of Jesus Christ (preaching the gospel, healing sick, helping homeless, charity, giving your life) the bible will seem stale and not real. Jesus Christ said do what I say and than you shall know that what I say I am who I am
Wanted to let everyone know about a response to Bart Ehrman's claims available in at the youtube channel "EhrmanProject"
and also
EhrmanProject (dot) com
Hope you enjoy the reponses to his claims.
Also, a new DVD entitled "The battle to discredit the bible" responds to Ehrman and other claims and is an excellent resource for all believers. The DVD is broken down into clips which are featured on my bible archaeology playlist - I hope you all find the information there interesting !
@nymphrenic If academics who were former christian believers are unsettling to you, I suggest you avoid any discussions taking place in respected universities, because you will find them everywhere. The more education one has regarding the cosmos around them, the less likely they are to retain religious fairy tales that they grew up with!
@nymphrenic Why does the personal account of a former christian explaining his reasons for no longer believing threaten you? That Berkeley, and many other forums, are interested in the phenomena comes as no surprise, this is what institutions of higher learning and inquiry do, namely offer experts a venue for discourse, explication, understanding.
@bobtheantman1 Why are you psychoanalyzing me? People who resort to psychoanalysis do so as a coping mechanism to deal with their repressed sexual attraction to pink flamingos.
If you deny this is true, then you clearly also suffer from denial.
I look forward to seeing you try and prove my diagnosis of you wrong.
@nymphrenic "So Berkeley hosts events where former Christians can share their de-conversion testimony?" Um., it's one interview of one man. I'd say Ehrman has taken a unique and interesting path from fundamentalism to skepticism. Would you disagree? What other videos in this series attest to your claim that Berkeley hosts disaffected former Christians? Or are you just making shit up? Gee, I wonder.
Websites: isca-apologetics(dot)org and bethinking(dot)org and nobtsapologetics(dot)com and bible(dot)org has rebuked all the False Claims of Mr. BART D. EHRMAN.
Must see the Exposed and false Face of Bart D. Ehrman
*Its heresy to equate God to creation ie H20 *Trinity is man-made/has no basis in Scripture *God is One [Exod 20:3, Mrk12:29, Quran2:163] *God is not man/son of [Num23:19] and never seen [Exod33:20] *Christ is created by a Word of God just as Adam or the universe "Let there 'BE'..." [Gen ch1,2] *God does not need blood sacrifice [Hos6:6] *you are not born with original sin [Ezek18:20] *Salvation is: Surrender to God/Islam and His MERCY.
Is any ready to surrender to GOD now! [i.e. become Muslim]?
It's hilarious to read all the comments by the crazy christians on here. their comments affirm my belief that christians are some of the dumbest people on the planet--you'd have to be stupid to believe all those myths.
don't forget you atheists that one of your people too left your atheism. Antony Flew ...hahah you lose too. we lost one of ours you atheists lost one of yours so we are even. :)
Antony Flew had great knowledge .. it was a shock to know he became a theist hhaha
@blopajmbar62 are you aware that Ehrman is an endowed (distinguished) professor of religious studies at one of the top public universities in the country? He just might know a bit more than you or some random douche bag out the internet.
@bdrasin of course I'm aware. Just ike when atheists try to disagree with john lennox when Lennox is actually a scientist. There is millions of people in the world smarter than Ehrman and with better studies than him who are christians and dont agree with him and have not left their faith/. His case doesn't mean anything to me.
'millions of people in the world smarter than Ehrman" ? Really? How would you know? Just because 'they' don't agree with Dr Ehrman doesn't mean he is wrong by the way. Evidence is all that is important. Faith is just wishful thinking.
@MrJohndl I don't know why i said millions maybe i wasn't paying attention. I meant to say hundreds of Christians Smarter than this guy . Just because he's smart doesn't mean he's right . Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we are wrong. No one knows what happened before the big bang yet the big bang is true . Just because you are christian doesn't mean you are dumb. there is actually well educated Christians who even got doctorates or are scientists like lennox
Interesting points...many Christians do not believe in the Big Bang by the way -they believe that God made the universe 6000 years ago. Also, I don't know whether Bart is smart or not - and it doesn't even matter really - evidence is all that is important, and the evidence clearly shows that the bible is largely invented, as are all the 'other' holy books that you don't believe in either. All religions are cultural inventions - science and evidence actually show us the truth.
@MrJohndl show me the evidence that the bible is invented?. How many times have you read it entirely? have you ever studied Christian history? not only their side because they will show you w.e they want you to think.... you need to hear both sides of the story. The bible is not a book you read 5 minutes and conclude is false. it takes time to read it and understand it, you cant readonly one book of the bible without looking at the rest b.c it will not make sense the bible makes sense as a whole
Dr Ehrman clearly shows and explains the evidence that the Bible is largely 'made up'. Science also clearly demonstrates that the Bible stories never happened - Adam and Eve, 6 days of creation, Noah's flood etc, all made up. You just need to open your mind a little and you will see it for yourself. Good luck.
@blopajmbar62 I disagree, I think a person should not waste years studying it to find out it to be fake. Just go to Mark 2 and see where is says Abiathar is King and in turn he is not lol. Easy to see, ask you'r self, if God did this work (the bible) would he mis-quote lol. And look where is says slavery is OK, and look at the suffering issue here as well. Do not need to read it to THINK and use LOGIC to say THIS IS A BIG FAKE.
Ehrman is an unmitigated fraud. His so-called "research into the discrepancies and contradictions" of the Christian scriptures is nothing more than a warmed-over retread of the higher criticism of the German schools of the 18th and 19th century. This leads me to believe that those who now hail Ehrman's banal rehashing of an outdated philology as fascinating and seminal are either disingenuous haters or intellectually bankrupt poseurs suffering from a bad case of scholarly amnesia.
it surprises me that people after hearing and watching videos like this, with exact references from the bible mistakes, and historical data also, still reject to see the truth, how should they be called? what are these people? :D
It always amaze me too. It doesnt matter how much historical information and references presented, certain groups and peoples seem blighted by the retarded psychology and beliefs systems either forced upon them as children or accepted as an adult without little of no research into the historical origin of the religion they accept. Any efforts of reasoning or providing references to keepers of the faith is deemed as attacks & blaspheming! Religion is a dope with a lock of comonsense
@caribbeandiaspora So true. But the reason why people automatically accuse you of being disrespectful is because it's the easiest way out of the discusion. I've seen again and again.
@caribbeandiaspora Are you suggesting that mere study of New Testament and early Church history is sufficient to convince any intelligent, honest person that Christianity is "fraudulent"? Sorry to burst your bubble, but many a finer mind than your own has tread this ground before and arrived at the very opposite conclusion. If there are any serious objections to Christianity as a world-view, they are not to be found in biblical scholarship, and anyone who says so is an intellectual simpleton.
Thank u 4 ur comment but I believe u hv not reviewed my comments here or have full knowledge of what I have been saying elsewhere. At no time have I been a proponent of any school of thought that subscribe 2 the view that the bible only is the final authority on anything. However, to understand religion we must first understand history 2 get anywhere close, as Dr Walter Williams and others rightfully say.
I have always been an ardent supporter of archeology in making determination
Christianity is false. Since Sir Wallis Budge's translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead it has longed been proven that the bible characters, stories and meanings where taken from the Egyptian papyrus which is reproduced by Romans and the so-called Hebrew writers under their own ethnic and racial identities with myths and allegories.
@caribbeandiaspora Also the Egyptian Book of Gates says that Horus is the begot son of Osiris, he has 12 helper gods whom he tells to...ahh, just go watch the video on my channel. Too long to go into. P.S. you are right. :))
@caribbeandiaspora No such thing has ever been proven...You've obviously been reading too many anti-Christian tracts penned by witless dilettantes hoping to make an easy buck exploiting the credulousness of "well read", "intellectually superior" haters like yourself. On the contrary, you will not find a single reputable scholar who would be willing to agree with this thesis. So if you wish to defame Christianity, then you would do well to devise some less obviously bankrupt rationale.
@MrTruthAddict Perhaps that would be true if Christianity asserted that a man rose from the dead of his own accord, though as anyone with even a tincture of theological training will tell you, that isn't what Christians believe. I don't think atheism is intellectually bankrupt as a world-view per se, though many who pretend to advance this world view through bad arguments that appeal to an impassioned minority complacent in its "intellectual superiority", are quite bankrupt (e.g. Dr. Ehrman).
I submit to you that u r seriously uneducated and miseducated on this subject. Not that I proclaim to know it all but one thing I do know 4 certain is that you are dead wrong. The bible have been disproved historically with every archeological evidence there is. Of course, there are many scholars throughout history have done some studies on the 'historical Jesus' for instance, and claiming to have found evidence of his existence but they have all been found to be revising themselves
@caribbeandiaspora Before coming to any hasty conclusions as to my "lack of education" and "miseducation" on this--or any--subject, you would do well to put a bit more effort into crafting your long unlettered responses with a view toward upholding the basic grammatical precepts of the English language. There is no historical evidence that "disproves" Christianity, nor any that "proves" it's truth. There are only competing interpretations of bodies of historical data. Dr. Ehrman is a fraud.
Insults will never work with me. I had reviewed all your comments before responding. Likewise I will say to you pick up a book and try reading with some understanding. You try to come on Youtube pretending to be scholar but you can provide no scholarly or scientic evaluation for your claim that Jesus and Christianity has not been "disproved". You may try to fool people but you will never fool me. Research Wallis Budge and when his works were published. Reseach Isis, horus, Serapis...
My word of advice: Stop trying to be crusader running around on videos such as these trying to spread your anger and poisen. Keep your beliefs to yourself. You lack scientific validation and methodology.
@caribbeandiaspora Now my word of advice: Until you are able to show even a tincture of familiarity with the major scholarly debates on this subject, you should refrain from posting your unlettered assertions in forums such as these. You are far from mounting even the most trivial case against that which you are pretending to easily refute. I think the fact that Ehrman's "work" tends to attract intellectually bankrupt cretins like yourself is a fair indicator of the value of his "methodology".
I suggest u get a good pair of spectacles! Took the advice I gave u & pickup a book. You may type until u drop dead, Bart Ehrman is a highly accomplished and respected scholar in his field & he is saying what many great minds have said. When black scholars say the same they are whores and when a respected white scholar say the same and even much more crusaders like yourself gang up on him. When he was a Christian he was the greatest, now he no longer believe he is a washed up scholar.
@caribbeandiaspora The problem here is not that I haven't "picked up" any books, but that the unsupported drivel that you spew likely stems from the utter lack of discrimination you have apparently exercised in choosing your books. But, hey, don't feel bad, this is quite typical of bigots. And if you think Bart Ehrman's "scholarship" is that impregnable, then I kindly suggest that you search "Craig Ehrman debate" and witness the unmitigated ass-spanking he takes at the hands of Dr. WL Craig.
"Typical bigot"? This is what it ALWAYS boil down 2 for fanatics like u. The problem with Christians & their hypothesis is that it always make an assumption of truth base on faith and faulty information repeatn themselves. The problem then become one where they begin within a theoretical framework with methods trying to prove something which they believe to be true instead of being open to the findings of their research whatever this may be. I suggest u broaden ur studies. pyramid tru
@caribbeandiaspora Yeah, a theoretical framework...kind of like atheists and naturalists....oh, I forgot, they don't bother to pay any heed to their theoretical frameworks, but follow the evidence wherever it leads...and it always seems to lead to atheism and naturalism, no matter how often their interpretations and arguments are refuted. Is that what you call intellectual honesty? What good arguments could conceivably be said to support atheism and naturalism? I don't see that there are any.
"What good arguments could conceivably be said to support atheism and naturalism? I don't see that there are any."
That would be because they require no support, actually.
"they don't bother to pay any heed to their theoretical frameworks"
If by this you mean what I think you mean, the difference between many atheists and you is that we don't accept unintelligible propositions as well formed. Philosobabble with no axiomatic or empirical grounding is just babble.
@uvauva2 The conceit that atheism and naturalism require no support is an intellectually bankrupt position, one moreover, that no major atheistic thinker advances today. Flew was the one who originally pressed this tact, only to abandon it later. Atheists and naturalists who claim that their religion affirms the truth of no proposition at all miss the glaring fact that, to say that a lack of belief is warranted on the basis of a certain condition of evidence in relation to the purported
"Atheists and naturalists who claim that their religion (...)"
I'm always amused at the way people like you try to counter those who don't share your wishful positions about the world by lumping us in the same bag as you.
@uvauva2 existence of an entity "X", is to ASSERT a proposition ABOUT "X" (e.g. that it is necessarily true that one's lack of belief in the existence of "X" is epistemically justified by an absence of evidence for "X"; that one BELIEVES that “X” is such that an absence of evidence is sufficient to justify a lack of belief in “X’s” existence), It goes without saying that this is NOT self-evidently true and thus bears a significant burden of proof.
"It goes without saying that this is NOT self-evidently true and thus bears a significant burden of proof"
I like how you adorn the statement with the "significant" qualifier.
But this is actually false. While you try to pretend naturalism as a statement within the realm of discussion, it is actually best viewed as a meta-statement about it: Of that which can not be indicated through evidence there is nothing to say about.
People like you enjoy making elaborate statements about (...)
@uvauva2 Please enlighten us as to what constitutes the "actual universe"? With which actual universe do you have direct acquaintance? And from what observation do you derive the inference that nothing else exists apart from that which you observe? You just keep begging the question over and over.
"Please enlighten us as to what constitutes the "actual universe"?"
No idea.
"And from what observation do you derive the inference that nothing else exists apart from that which you observe?"
I don't hold to any such proposition. The actual claim, the one I've been actually repeated over and over, is that about that which can't be observed in any way nothing can be said.
@uvauva2 Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, an this is particularly true with respect to God and the supernatural. In any event, negative statements are simply positive affirmations in disguise. The contra positive of "I do not believe God exists" is "I believe God does not exist". ". Transpose the above statements into the terms of symbolic propositional logic and you'll see that they are formal equivalents.
"Transpose the above statements into the terms of symbolic propositional logic and you'll see that they are formal equivalents."
This is actually false, and even idiotic. Contrapositive concerns the relation of "implication" between propositions, not this "believe" symbol. Care to provide a formal axiomatic for that one?
Beliefs are always subject to justification. But in the case of the naturalism, the justification for it is simply that the propositions it produces are the only ones that are intelligible. In essence, I would say that the "belief" in naturalism is justified by the fact that all properly rational discourse is naturalistic.
@uvauva2 That naturalism produces propositions which appear intelligible on the basis of, and in terms of, naturalistic ASSUMPTIONS is not a valid argument in favor of it's truth. I would further suggest that it is question-begging in the extreme to first define the scope of "properly rational discourse" in such a way as to conform its limits to the constituitive logical strictures of naturalism, and then go on to assert that, "therefore" such discourse supports belief in naturalism.
" I would further suggest that it is question-begging in the extreme to first define the scope of "properly rational discourse" in such a way as to conform its limits to the constituitive logical strictures of naturalism, and then go on to assert that, "therefore" such discourse supports belief in naturalism."
My very first sentence to you was that naturalism requires no support. There is no "therefore".
Quite frankly, you chose to dig your heels in a completely indefensible position. You are in fact trying to argue that that which can be given no evidence for should have a place within the realm of discourse. This is a position I doubt many apologists would try to defend (or admit is the case of god), but if that's where you want to stand I'll have no problem to continue telling you why it's silly.
@uvauva2 I argued no such thing. If you exercised a bit of subtlety, you'd see that what I'm actually arguing against is your assertion that you can justifiably delimit that which counts AS EVIDENCE in terms of a its conformity to a criterion of meaning grounded exclusively on propositions whose content can be verified empirically or axiomatically. The criterion itself is self-refuting. So we're not exactly just going to let you assume it just because it suits your naturalistic prejudice.
@uvauva2 Because if the statement "only those propositions whose contents can be empirically or axiomatically verified can be said to be meaningful and true" was in fact taken to be TRUE, then it would exclude from possibility the truth and meaningfulness of the statement itself. This is because the statement cannot be empirically verified nor is it axiomatic. It's just an arbitrary definition of meaningfullness. ONE THAT HAPPENS TO BE SELF REFUTING.
Now, as you might have noticed. That little "proof" you just performed occurred because you allowed the proposition "only those propositions whose contents can be empirically or axiomatically verified can be said to be meaningful and true" to be self referential. I also noticed that you purposefully CHANGED my statements to "meaningful and true" as opposed to merely "meaningful", or the trick wouldn't really work. Like I said on the other post, you're just abusing the "liar's paradox".
@uvauva2 My argument works just dandy even with the word "true" taken out. The principle doesn't live up to the very standard it purports to assert as absolute.
"My argument works just dandy even with the word "true" taken out."
Nope, as the statement is meaningful for empirical reasons. You know from experience the meaning of the terms involved.
"The principle doesn't live up to the very standard it purports to assert as absolute."
Do read on the liar's paradox, will you? All you are really doing is disallowing the possibility of making assertions about the realm of discourse by interpreting those assertions as self referential.
And when I said "it was exactly the liar's paradox" I really meant that the situation is the same kind you have in Russel's paradox with the "set of all sets": you derive a contradiction by allowing rules to be used as meta-rules.
@uvauva2 In so far as the verification principle you articulated purports to set forth the limits of meaningful discourse, and to thus impose rigorous strictures upon what kinds of discourse can be meaningfully employed in constituting valid logical rules, it does, in fact, serve a regulative meta-logical principle; it acts as a "meta-rule".
No. The "verification principle" I articulated is meant to apply to propositions that are directly concerned with the "universe". There is a difference between discussing that which does or not exist in the "universe" and discussing discourse itself.
But this all ultimately relates to the following question: what does it mean for a statement to be meaningful. How do you go about verifying that your statements are so?
@uvauva2 The problem here is that existential statements are a type of discourse. And if you arbitrarily proscribe that content which is, in principle, non-empirically or axiomatically verifiable, then you end up asserting naturalism as a truism. To say that everything we say exists must be, in principle, empirically verifiable is just a loaded way of saying "only that which we experience is real". I don't think we have any good reason to believe that.
Ultimately I would say it is. And, quite frankly, as you are posting on a thread dishing on Ehrman, it's clear to me you are a christian whose god DOES cause empirical acts.
"To say that everything we say exists must be, in principle, empirically verifiable is just a loaded way of saying "only that which we experience is real"."
I do not accept the rephrasing. "only that which we experience do we know how to discuss".
@uvauva2 We have no empirical verifiable acquaintance with historical events. Verificationism turns historical statements into gobbledygook. That's just one reason to believe it's false.
"Verificationism turns historical statements into gobbledygook"
I don't know exactly what verificationism is supposed to be, or if you are presenting it faithfully, and I hardly care. You might try to stop arguing against a position I don't hold.
For one thing, our very acquaintance with the external world or other minds is inherently indirect and inferential. Neither can be empirically verified. We understand, notwithstanding, to what kinds of things these words and phrases apply. I could say the same thing with respect to propositions which contain words like "God" or "soul". Barring some explicit or implicit contradiction that can be demonstrated, it's not clear how such things could be summarily dismissed as meaningless.
@uvauva2 This form of the verification principle (referring to our “direct” experience of the universe) doesn’t withstand much critical scrutiny either, as it purports to affirm a proposition about an entire class of propositions, namely existential propositions (since our knowledge of the universe is not of some such “thing” as the “universe”, but only of “true” propositions about that “thing” which we describe as the “universe”); that they are cognitively meaningful if and only if they admit
@uvauva2 of empirical verification. Take for instance proposition P, that “x exists”. The principle for which you argue affirms the following proposition about P: “It is the case [it is true] that for any given proposition P, P is meaningful if and only if P is empirically verifiable”.
@uvauva2 ”. I would submit that there is no way around the fact that to affirm the verification principle is to affirm, not discourse about types of existent “things”, but discourse about a type of discourse; to assert, moreover, certain well-defined limits to this very type of discourse. And in the case of the VP, this is a totally arbitrary delimitation.
But quite frankly, all this line of reasoning is as idiotic as it is dishonest. Your goal with this "refuting" of my "principle" is to fit your favorite example of supposedly meaningful propositions that don't fall under my it. Given that you have those cherished examples one wonders why not argue for them directly.
@uvauva2 What is idiotic is to assert a criterion of meaning that can't even cut muster on its own definition of meaning, and then claim that we should adopt it on the basis of the fact that, if we assume it's true it allows us to derive a bunch of conclusions entailed directly by those assumptions.
"What is idiotic is to assert a criterion of meaning that can't even cut muster on its own definition of meaning"
You have been the one designating my statement (or rather, your own phrasing) as a principle/criterion, which I do not think is what it is (which is why I made sure to add " "). I view it as an observation: formal deductive or empirical claims whose meaning is defined in precise enough terms to be labelled as knowledge. If others exist, present them.
In that case, what your argument amounts to is the observation that empirically verifiable propositions can be empirically verified. But how do we get from there to "only empirically verifiable propositions can be labelled as knowledge". I could argue that propositions asserting the existence of other minds resist empirical modes of verification (since I have no direct acquaintance with any such thing). Are we then forced to plead irrationality here?
"I could argue that propositions asserting the existence of other minds resist empirical modes of verification"
The only relevance of the "existence" of other minds is, I would say, it's consequences. I have no problem in asserting that other minds exist because I observe other people acting and speaking in ways that I find consistent in ways similar to my own. This coupled with the fact that we possess entirely similar physical structures and were "produced" by similar biological(...)
(...) processes makes it reasonable to think that they achieve their similar behavior through similar processes.
But I will point out that I find the question ultimately irrelevant. Should you happen to be a computer that successfully passed the Turing test (and the fact that you are apparently always online seems to increase the odds), I do not see that as diminishing the value of the conversation.
@uvauva2 I'm not arguing anything but an epistemological point. For all I know, if God does exist, our language might very well be inadequate to the task of describing him, but VP claims to dispense with it all in a dishonest way.
Stop harping on the VP. If you want to argue it find someone else.
"For all I know, if God does exist, our language might very well be inadequate to the task of describing him"
And this could be true of a whole amount of things. Although the moment we forgo the adequacy of language on a topic, on should wonder what it means to say that such "topic" exists, as that statement is formed inside our language.
@uvauva2 VP is exactly what you are asserting, and in its most naive form. It may just be the case that not all putatively meaningful statements can be empirically verified. If that appears to be the case (and the bulk of contemporary analytic philosophers agree that it is), then so much the worse for empirical verification as a necessary condition of meaning. In any event, the principle isn't self evidently true, as I said, nor empirically verifiable.
"It may just be the case that not all putatively meaningful statements can be empirically verified. If that appears to be the case (and the bulk of contemporary analytic philosophers agree that it is),"
This is a question that decidedly isn't to be decided through vote. I would even say that philosophers are biased towards not excising those branches of their field who seem to be no more than babble, and point out again that I'm not very impressed by philosophers as a whole (...)
(...) . I think their field suffers from the lack of the need of "reality checks" that you find in science and even in math (that and the fact that I think that any philosopher making statements about logic that is unaware or doesn't understand some fundamental theorems on the subject, like Godel's incompleteness theorem, is bound make very naive claims).
@uvauva2 It just asserts an arbitrary condition that cannot be maintained without subverting the conditions of its own meaningfulness--conditions which it asserts as universal to all propositions of which we predicate the term "meaningful".
I couldn't very well argue for any of my "cherished examples" if all talk of them is ruled out of hand as "gibberish" from the oustset, now could I? :-)
"I couldn't very well argue for any of my "cherished examples" if all talk of them is ruled out of hand as "gibberish" from the oustset, now could I? :-)"
Of course you could. Just provide me when a method to address their meaning and truth value. That is the whole reason why your talks of dogma is just a straw man to make you feel comfortable that naturalists are unreasonable.
And I should point out that I disagree that either god or souls are really non-empirical, as most models(...)
@uvauva2 . How could we, in principle, go about verifying the meaningfulness of the aforementioned proposition? It clearly isn’t analytic. Neither does it refer to any discrete body of sense data, but to a body of PROPOSITIONS of a certain type (those that assert P). It therefore seems to follow that, if true, it would be as cognitively meaningless as the very “babble” you have decried.
"How could we, in principle, go about verifying the meaningfulness of the aforementioned proposition?"
For that we require some "working definition" of what it means for a proposition to be meaningful, which is what I have been trying to extract from your for awhile. We seem to be working under the assumption that there is a predicate " - is meaningful" which can be applied to a proposition "P". How do we evaluate it's truth value?
@uvauva2 The point is that it can't be verified, which is why it doesn't work as a criterion of "meaning". Whatever principle there may be for properly adjudicating between those props which predicate the word "meaning" of a something, it surely cannot be that asserted by the verification principle.
I can't cease to be amused that you truly try to defend a refutation without premises.
"The point is that it can't be verified, which is why it doesn't work as a criterion of "meaning"."
In an absolute logical sense NOTHING can be ultimately verified. But this principal does not purport absoluteness. Like I said, it concerns a range of "existencial" claims, and is a practical principal, not a dogmatic one. Present a relevant example, and the principle will change accordingly.
@uvauva2 You are confusing actual verification and verification "in principle", here. The VP can't be verified in principle, though it claims that all meaningful propositions must be. And that includes existential propositions.
@uvauva2 . To say that a universally quantified proposition about propositions (which the VP is, in every form—unless of course we are arguing for it as a heuristic possessing no strict logical force) is exempt from the necessary implications of the proposition it asserts, is just special-pleading on behalf of the VP and the unfounded naturalistic prejudice it embodies.
@uvauva2 All universally quantified propositions which assert facts about the nature of propositions will necessarily be self-referential. Bot not self-refuting. Therein lies your problem.
"All universally quantified propositions which assert facts about the nature of propositions will necessarily be self-referential. Bot not self-refuting. Therein lies your problem."
The fundamental question is whether any such propositions CAN even exist. Like I said, this question has had mathematical treatments, motivated, among other things, by Russel's paradox. One of the solutions is to have a layering of propositions.
@uvauva2 You haven't answered the point at all, just pushed the question back further: If it is possible that such propositions could not even exist, then how could we meaningfully assert anything about the nature of such propositions, namely that "that they can't even exist", on the verification principle? AFAIK, by the end of his life Russell had scuttled verificationism along with much of the rest of the intellectual detritus that came out of the Vienna Circle. You should follow suit.
"AFAIK, by the end of his life Russell had scuttled verificationism along with much of the rest of the intellectual detritus that came out of the Vienna Circle. You should follow suit."
"You haven't answered the point at all, just pushed the question back further: If it is possible that such propositions could not even exist, then how could we meaningfully assert anything about the nature of such propositions, namely that "that they can't even exist", on the verification principle?"
You are just really going in circles. Simply try to address my question about what it means for something to be meaningful. I can also play recurrence.
@uvauva2 I have made no claims as to what, if any, conditions would qualify a proposition as "meaningful", but suggested that the criterion you are asserting is arbitrary and self-refuting. I'm not obligated to propound a theory of meaning to show that yours doesn't work.
" I'm not obligated to propound a theory of meaning to show that yours doesn't work."
So "refuting" a proposition involving the term "meaning" does not require asserting properties of it? Is your refutation then formal? Does it work with "meaning" replaced by "banana"?. As this is not the case, in your very "refutation" you are assuming premises relating to "meaning". Expound on them. In other words: turn your "refutation" into a syllogism.
@uvauva2 This is just a bunch of hand-waving. My refutation does not assume any defining characteristics of meaning, only points out that the one you assert ends up, on your own assumptions, asserting NOTHING by the very definition it proposes.
@uvauva2 And please do drop this patronizing tone. Feigning an aura of broad philosophical erudition by sprinkling your answers with arcane analytic jargon, while dancing around the arguments and ignoring substantive points is not making you look like any less of a poseur.
"Feigning an aura of broad philosophical erudition". No, that is what YOU are doing.
I happen to be a mathematician, and never found philosophical education to be of any relevance. The way I see it, philosophers would do well to learn the foundations of mathematical logic, as then they would not be so quick so produce statements that mean nothing.
@uvauva2 Really? You would do well to read up on the various philosophical treatments of verificationism. As I said, there is a reason why it lost broad support decades ago, even among its most enthusiastic endorsers, like Ayer, Wittgenstein, and Russel. Apart from the fact that it renders statements that obviously convey intelligible information into meaningless nonsense by terminological fiat, it also happens to be self-refuting.You can't build knowledge upon a foundation of self-refutation
"You can't build knowledge upon a foundation of self-refutation"
Yawn.
And what does "knowledge" even mean? What form of "knowledge" deserves to be called so without any empirical verification? Without checking its propositions against that to which they refer to see if they are indeed true?
@uvauva2 You're just begging the question, yet again. I don't concede that one can only have "knowledge" of things that can be empirically verified. This is the very controversy of verificationism. I've explained why. It turns ordinary language into gobbledygook and is self-refuting. Moreover, against what does one, on this view, check his propositions against? Experience? No, more propositions.
It's about time we all understand the bible as what it really is: a collection of books that were written individually by different authors that had very different points of views about the figure of their "god". This authors were never "inspired" and their ignorance about the world is evident all over the bible.
ateodeponce 1 month ago 6
@ateodeponce well said
99minerkc 3 weeks ago
youtube comment
LIGHTRONIX 1 month ago
Twisted...you must be a troll. But correct, there is NO debate, the bible is not "inspired". Btw did you have the sound off when you watched this lecture?
As you can see, Christians have no argument except (but the bible says the bible is true). I know for a fact because I used to be a devout Christian and they really have no intelligible arguments
bcjammer 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
exposingchristianity(dot)com
the best Christian website to spread Christian love and expose how real Christians like to praise our almighty God in a good Christian way!!! Please visit.
prlomchild 2 months ago
So are you Christians going to actually provide an intelligible debate on his studies or just keep showing your inability to accept truth and reality? I'm tired of the fiction of religion...I applaud the Doc for being able to do what so many of the faith cannot (it was a difficult realization for me as well)
bcjammer 4 months ago
@bcjammer the gospel isn't up for debate. If you don't have ears to hear don't listen.
twistedbydsign99 2 months ago
@twistedbydsign99 Christianity is up for mocking so long as xtians continue to push their agenda in a mythical god's name. xtians need to grow the F... up and back off from threatening people who have different world views than them.
99minerkc 3 weeks ago
Ehrman, 'Jesus interrupted', is great. also E.A.Wallis Budge, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), other great writings are by Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', sceptical Bible scholars: Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Victor J Stenger, Robert M Price, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Richard Carrier, David Mills, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon While all the people you list are fine writers and certainly interesting & enlightening to read, don't confuse being a writer with being a scholar. Some are scholars but many on your list are not scholars by any definition. Scholarship is far more than doing some research and writing a book and getting it published. Scholarship employes a methodology. Ken Humphreys as an example, is not a scholar. Scholars don't have “Paypal Donate” buttons on their websites!!!
DidacticEno 1 week ago
The host? Bowwwww-iiiinnnnngggg!
insanecaine 5 months ago
Suffering as a punishment for sin is trivial to prove wrong - what about innocents who suffer without having sinned? I.e.: a child born with spina bifida? Religions have to concoct these weird theories that make everyone a sinner from birth; it's absurd.
gwcstudio 6 months ago
Everybody has got an opinion, the only correct opinion is mine.
bonnie43uk 6 months ago
@bonnie43uk and wats your opinion?
fizwidget101 6 months ago
@fizwidget101 If i told you, i'd have to kill you.
Na, be nice to eachother, treat people as you'd like to be treated, thats a pretty good way to go in life. Easy to say though, not to easy to do.
bonnie43uk 6 months ago
@bonnie43uk your right your opinion is 100% correct. God bless u
fizwidget101 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the testimony of man of christ is good! the testimony that god has given us, spirit, blood and water that flowed from out of the body of christ and unto the right side of the ark of the covenant hidden beneath the cross, where christ was crucified completed gods redemption plan. The resurrection is here! It is within the earth and it is infallible.
breomeo 6 months ago
@breomeo Don't worry, you don't sound like you're in a cult at all.
sleepcity 3 months ago 2
Whoever, whenever, wherever, speak for the truth!!! we would accept it!!!
mansuraus 6 months ago
I enjoyed this interview greatly, thank you for sharing the video.
Pineconevolved 6 months ago
We don't need complex textual analysis to come to the conclusion that the Bible is not reliable. The fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth and that humans didn't even exist back then clearly demonstrates that the Bible is not historically accurate. Geez...
MrJohndl 7 months ago
Whatever...Keep on your stubborness... And I want to make clear that I DO believe in "Jesus" (Not his name by the way) and his original teachings and message. I still believe that Erhman´s is right on target regarding his discoveries...peace to you...Pls do not bother to continue aswering me with your childish argumentation... Peace to you anyway...
abnertgu 7 months ago
@abnertgu We're on the same page here.
raoul116 7 months ago
The whole of Christianity is based on here say and stories and lies! It's shocking to see how anybody could believe in christianity after hearing ehrmans lectures!
1anj1 8 months ago
Comment removed
lidil100 7 months ago
@lidil100 Nobody is denying Jesus the son of Mary! Nobody is denying his initial message. What is all messed up is " is the revelation of Jesus the son of Mary is that the bible?"
The answer has to be NO unequivocally. If the bible is full of here say and stories then which bit is true about Jesus and what his ministry was about?
1anj1 7 months ago
The problem that Christianity has is that dr ehrman is an academic. Hence all his work has references and is reviewed by his peers. You cannot argue with that. Christian apologists want to take the debate away by setting up you tube channels against ehrman. No references or peers needed. They then attack him on the sly!
1anj1 8 months ago
I read God's Problem and could not put it down. It shines through that Bart Ehrman loves the human race. I cried reading his words it is clear he is filled with the love of God no matter if he calls himself an agnostic. He even said how could he give thanks for his food when so many are starving. Thank God for Ehrman he is sent to teach us. I appreciate his work and pray always for him to be restored to his faith in Jesus.
lidil100 8 months ago
@lidil100 Do you actually know anything about his scholarly work?
merryvinbock 7 months ago
Comment removed
lidil100 7 months ago
@lidil100 That seems to be a rather extreme and not very open-minded perspective, but I guess it explains your comment, thank you.
merryvinbock 7 months ago
@merryvinbock I don't see Ehrman as my enemy. He is telling it as it is. If my faith is not strong enough to bear opposition then my faith is small indeed.
lidil100 7 months ago
@lidil100
LOL "Thank God for Ehrman he is sent to teach us" WTF? Clearly the psychologists are right - people just DON'T change their minds now do they? Even after reading his books...
MrJohndl 7 months ago
Comment removed
lidil100 7 months ago
@MrJohndl I didn't comment to start arguments so have a good life all
lidil100 7 months ago
I personally agree with most of what Mr. Erhman has to say about this controversial issue. Not only that, but I really admire his boldness and his courage to stand out of the crowd, to point out what most Xtian believers -and scholars- are afraid or terrified to admit even in despite of the plain evidence presented so far. Truth is not always welcomed by those who pretend to defend its tenets.... These ones are still in bondage under heavy chains of ignorance, intolerance and fanaticism.
abnertgu 8 months ago
Comment removed
lidil100 7 months ago
I have observed two kinds of people in these comments: 1. Many folks here appear to feel and be intimidated by Erhman´s conclusions: They are not really sure about the foundations of their Xtian beliefs...theirs is a hollow faith 2. Many folks here are delighted to read and hear that Mr. Erhman´s conlcusions seem to be irrefutable: most probably haven´t been believers at all in the bible, and this because they don´t want to abide by its moral principles of righteousness (sinners).
abnertgu 8 months ago
Comment removed
lidil100 7 months ago
the bible has a lot of contradictions -- wow.. and still a lot of people will use faith to prove that the evidences are all wrong. it is even more complex to do the math.
TheMissymail 8 months ago
unless you do the works of Jesus Christ (preaching the gospel, healing sick, helping homeless, charity, giving your life) the bible will seem stale and not real. Jesus Christ said do what I say and than you shall know that what I say I am who I am
christovercame 8 months ago
Wanted to let everyone know about a response to Bart Ehrman's claims available in at the youtube channel "EhrmanProject"
and also
EhrmanProject (dot) com
Hope you enjoy the reponses to his claims.
Also, a new DVD entitled "The battle to discredit the bible" responds to Ehrman and other claims and is an excellent resource for all believers. The DVD is broken down into clips which are featured on my bible archaeology playlist - I hope you all find the information there interesting !
Oallos1 8 months ago
what is the music at the beginning? it's wonderful
crankysconga 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a more in depth response to Dr. Ehrman's assertions, please visit:
youtube channel EhrmanProject
or
EhrmanProject . com
Furthermore:
Inerrancy . org
and then click on "Other beliefs" and scroll down the left hand side to the sections on Bart Ehrman.
Oallos1 9 months ago
The host of the Journey Home doesn't grin and giggle nor look like he can barely contain his joy over the converts on his show, though.
The hosts hyper-enthusiasm over Ehrmans de-conversion gives me the creeps.
nymphrenic 9 months ago
@nymphrenic If academics who were former christian believers are unsettling to you, I suggest you avoid any discussions taking place in respected universities, because you will find them everywhere. The more education one has regarding the cosmos around them, the less likely they are to retain religious fairy tales that they grew up with!
portwes 9 months ago
So Berkeley hosts events where former Christians can share their de-conversion testimony?
This is like the atheist version of EWTN's "The Journey Home."
LMAO. Atheists are so hilarious sometimes.
nymphrenic 9 months ago
@nymphrenic Why does the personal account of a former christian explaining his reasons for no longer believing threaten you? That Berkeley, and many other forums, are interested in the phenomena comes as no surprise, this is what institutions of higher learning and inquiry do, namely offer experts a venue for discourse, explication, understanding.
bobtheantman1 9 months ago
@bobtheantman1 Why are you psychoanalyzing me? People who resort to psychoanalysis do so as a coping mechanism to deal with their repressed sexual attraction to pink flamingos.
If you deny this is true, then you clearly also suffer from denial.
I look forward to seeing you try and prove my diagnosis of you wrong.
LOL.
nymphrenic 9 months ago
@nymphrenic "So Berkeley hosts events where former Christians can share their de-conversion testimony?" Um., it's one interview of one man. I'd say Ehrman has taken a unique and interesting path from fundamentalism to skepticism. Would you disagree? What other videos in this series attest to your claim that Berkeley hosts disaffected former Christians? Or are you just making shit up? Gee, I wonder.
sleepcity 9 months ago 2
A RESPONSE TO BART D. EHRMAN'S MISQUOTING JESUS
Websites: isca-apologetics(dot)org and bethinking(dot)org and nobtsapologetics(dot)com and bible(dot)org has rebuked all the False Claims of Mr. BART D. EHRMAN.
Must see the Exposed and false Face of Bart D. Ehrman
2000peterpaul 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*Its heresy to equate God to creation ie H20 *Trinity is man-made/has no basis in Scripture *God is One [Exod 20:3, Mrk12:29, Quran2:163] *God is not man/son of [Num23:19] and never seen [Exod33:20] *Christ is created by a Word of God just as Adam or the universe "Let there 'BE'..." [Gen ch1,2] *God does not need blood sacrifice [Hos6:6] *you are not born with original sin [Ezek18:20] *Salvation is: Surrender to God/Islam and His MERCY.
Is any ready to surrender to GOD now! [i.e. become Muslim]?
robin4good 11 months ago
Comment removed
robin4good 11 months ago
It's hilarious to read all the comments by the crazy christians on here. their comments affirm my belief that christians are some of the dumbest people on the planet--you'd have to be stupid to believe all those myths.
Marki311 11 months ago
i like this guy he is very refreshing. my brother went to seminary and finds this man's wisdom refreshsing
alcoholichealer 11 months ago
Bart Ehrman is great! Tells it like it is. There is also a great National Geographic document "Hidden Secrets of the Bible" that is very informative.
quantumleap8824 11 months ago
don't forget you atheists that one of your people too left your atheism. Antony Flew ...hahah you lose too. we lost one of ours you atheists lost one of yours so we are even. :)
Antony Flew had great knowledge .. it was a shock to know he became a theist hhaha
blopajmbar62 11 months ago
@blopajmbar62 More Xtian deathbed confession urban legends.
MrTruthAddict 11 months ago
@MrTruthAddict what you mean
blopajmbar62 11 months ago
@blopajmbar62 are you aware that Ehrman is an endowed (distinguished) professor of religious studies at one of the top public universities in the country? He just might know a bit more than you or some random douche bag out the internet.
bdrasin 9 months ago 2
@bdrasin of course I'm aware. Just ike when atheists try to disagree with john lennox when Lennox is actually a scientist. There is millions of people in the world smarter than Ehrman and with better studies than him who are christians and dont agree with him and have not left their faith/. His case doesn't mean anything to me.
blopajmbar62 9 months ago
@blopajmbar62
'millions of people in the world smarter than Ehrman" ? Really? How would you know? Just because 'they' don't agree with Dr Ehrman doesn't mean he is wrong by the way. Evidence is all that is important. Faith is just wishful thinking.
MrJohndl 8 months ago
@MrJohndl I don't know why i said millions maybe i wasn't paying attention. I meant to say hundreds of Christians Smarter than this guy . Just because he's smart doesn't mean he's right . Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we are wrong. No one knows what happened before the big bang yet the big bang is true . Just because you are christian doesn't mean you are dumb. there is actually well educated Christians who even got doctorates or are scientists like lennox
blopajmbar62 8 months ago
@blopajmbar62
Interesting points...many Christians do not believe in the Big Bang by the way -they believe that God made the universe 6000 years ago. Also, I don't know whether Bart is smart or not - and it doesn't even matter really - evidence is all that is important, and the evidence clearly shows that the bible is largely invented, as are all the 'other' holy books that you don't believe in either. All religions are cultural inventions - science and evidence actually show us the truth.
MrJohndl 8 months ago
@MrJohndl show me the evidence that the bible is invented?. How many times have you read it entirely? have you ever studied Christian history? not only their side because they will show you w.e they want you to think.... you need to hear both sides of the story. The bible is not a book you read 5 minutes and conclude is false. it takes time to read it and understand it, you cant readonly one book of the bible without looking at the rest b.c it will not make sense the bible makes sense as a whole
blopajmbar62 8 months ago
@blopajmbar62
Dr Ehrman clearly shows and explains the evidence that the Bible is largely 'made up'. Science also clearly demonstrates that the Bible stories never happened - Adam and Eve, 6 days of creation, Noah's flood etc, all made up. You just need to open your mind a little and you will see it for yourself. Good luck.
MrJohndl 8 months ago 2
@blopajmbar62 I disagree, I think a person should not waste years studying it to find out it to be fake. Just go to Mark 2 and see where is says Abiathar is King and in turn he is not lol. Easy to see, ask you'r self, if God did this work (the bible) would he mis-quote lol. And look where is says slavery is OK, and look at the suffering issue here as well. Do not need to read it to THINK and use LOGIC to say THIS IS A BIG FAKE.
daytonohiofellowship 8 months ago
Ehrman is an unmitigated fraud. His so-called "research into the discrepancies and contradictions" of the Christian scriptures is nothing more than a warmed-over retread of the higher criticism of the German schools of the 18th and 19th century. This leads me to believe that those who now hail Ehrman's banal rehashing of an outdated philology as fascinating and seminal are either disingenuous haters or intellectually bankrupt poseurs suffering from a bad case of scholarly amnesia.
djs259 11 months ago
it surprises me that people after hearing and watching videos like this, with exact references from the bible mistakes, and historical data also, still reject to see the truth, how should they be called? what are these people? :D
albcorason 1 year ago
@albcorason
It always amaze me too. It doesnt matter how much historical information and references presented, certain groups and peoples seem blighted by the retarded psychology and beliefs systems either forced upon them as children or accepted as an adult without little of no research into the historical origin of the religion they accept. Any efforts of reasoning or providing references to keepers of the faith is deemed as attacks & blaspheming! Religion is a dope with a lock of comonsense
caribbeandiaspora 1 year ago
@caribbeandiaspora So true. But the reason why people automatically accuse you of being disrespectful is because it's the easiest way out of the discusion. I've seen again and again.
RevInt1 1 year ago
@caribbeandiaspora Are you suggesting that mere study of New Testament and early Church history is sufficient to convince any intelligent, honest person that Christianity is "fraudulent"? Sorry to burst your bubble, but many a finer mind than your own has tread this ground before and arrived at the very opposite conclusion. If there are any serious objections to Christianity as a world-view, they are not to be found in biblical scholarship, and anyone who says so is an intellectual simpleton.
djs259 11 months ago
@djs259
Thank u 4 ur comment but I believe u hv not reviewed my comments here or have full knowledge of what I have been saying elsewhere. At no time have I been a proponent of any school of thought that subscribe 2 the view that the bible only is the final authority on anything. However, to understand religion we must first understand history 2 get anywhere close, as Dr Walter Williams and others rightfully say.
I have always been an ardent supporter of archeology in making determination
caribbeandiaspora 11 months ago
@albcorason Fanatics.
RevInt1 1 year ago
@albcorason Idiots
MrTruthAddict 11 months ago
Christianity is false. Since Sir Wallis Budge's translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead it has longed been proven that the bible characters, stories and meanings where taken from the Egyptian papyrus which is reproduced by Romans and the so-called Hebrew writers under their own ethnic and racial identities with myths and allegories.
caribbeandiaspora 1 year ago
@caribbeandiaspora Also the Egyptian Book of Gates says that Horus is the begot son of Osiris, he has 12 helper gods whom he tells to...ahh, just go watch the video on my channel. Too long to go into. P.S. you are right. :))
changingmyself 1 year ago
@changingmyself
Thank you. I will try and check out your video.
caribbeandiaspora 11 months ago
@caribbeandiaspora No such thing has ever been proven...You've obviously been reading too many anti-Christian tracts penned by witless dilettantes hoping to make an easy buck exploiting the credulousness of "well read", "intellectually superior" haters like yourself. On the contrary, you will not find a single reputable scholar who would be willing to agree with this thesis. So if you wish to defame Christianity, then you would do well to devise some less obviously bankrupt rationale.
djs259 11 months ago
@djs259 Xtianity 'defames' itself. Anyone who believes a man rose from the dead is intellectually bankrupt.
MrTruthAddict 11 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Perhaps that would be true if Christianity asserted that a man rose from the dead of his own accord, though as anyone with even a tincture of theological training will tell you, that isn't what Christians believe. I don't think atheism is intellectually bankrupt as a world-view per se, though many who pretend to advance this world view through bad arguments that appeal to an impassioned minority complacent in its "intellectual superiority", are quite bankrupt (e.g. Dr. Ehrman).
djs259 11 months ago
@djs259
I submit to you that u r seriously uneducated and miseducated on this subject. Not that I proclaim to know it all but one thing I do know 4 certain is that you are dead wrong. The bible have been disproved historically with every archeological evidence there is. Of course, there are many scholars throughout history have done some studies on the 'historical Jesus' for instance, and claiming to have found evidence of his existence but they have all been found to be revising themselves
caribbeandiaspora 11 months ago 2
@caribbeandiaspora Before coming to any hasty conclusions as to my "lack of education" and "miseducation" on this--or any--subject, you would do well to put a bit more effort into crafting your long unlettered responses with a view toward upholding the basic grammatical precepts of the English language. There is no historical evidence that "disproves" Christianity, nor any that "proves" it's truth. There are only competing interpretations of bodies of historical data. Dr. Ehrman is a fraud.
djs259 11 months ago
@djs259
Insults will never work with me. I had reviewed all your comments before responding. Likewise I will say to you pick up a book and try reading with some understanding. You try to come on Youtube pretending to be scholar but you can provide no scholarly or scientic evaluation for your claim that Jesus and Christianity has not been "disproved". You may try to fool people but you will never fool me. Research Wallis Budge and when his works were published. Reseach Isis, horus, Serapis...
caribbeandiaspora 10 months ago 5
@djs259
My word of advice: Stop trying to be crusader running around on videos such as these trying to spread your anger and poisen. Keep your beliefs to yourself. You lack scientific validation and methodology.
caribbeandiaspora 10 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@caribbeandiaspora Now my word of advice: Until you are able to show even a tincture of familiarity with the major scholarly debates on this subject, you should refrain from posting your unlettered assertions in forums such as these. You are far from mounting even the most trivial case against that which you are pretending to easily refute. I think the fact that Ehrman's "work" tends to attract intellectually bankrupt cretins like yourself is a fair indicator of the value of his "methodology".
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
I suggest u get a good pair of spectacles! Took the advice I gave u & pickup a book. You may type until u drop dead, Bart Ehrman is a highly accomplished and respected scholar in his field & he is saying what many great minds have said. When black scholars say the same they are whores and when a respected white scholar say the same and even much more crusaders like yourself gang up on him. When he was a Christian he was the greatest, now he no longer believe he is a washed up scholar.
caribbeandiaspora 10 months ago
@caribbeandiaspora The problem here is not that I haven't "picked up" any books, but that the unsupported drivel that you spew likely stems from the utter lack of discrimination you have apparently exercised in choosing your books. But, hey, don't feel bad, this is quite typical of bigots. And if you think Bart Ehrman's "scholarship" is that impregnable, then I kindly suggest that you search "Craig Ehrman debate" and witness the unmitigated ass-spanking he takes at the hands of Dr. WL Craig.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"Typical bigot"? This is what it ALWAYS boil down 2 for fanatics like u. The problem with Christians & their hypothesis is that it always make an assumption of truth base on faith and faulty information repeatn themselves. The problem then become one where they begin within a theoretical framework with methods trying to prove something which they believe to be true instead of being open to the findings of their research whatever this may be. I suggest u broaden ur studies. pyramid tru
caribbeandiaspora 10 months ago
@caribbeandiaspora Yeah, a theoretical framework...kind of like atheists and naturalists....oh, I forgot, they don't bother to pay any heed to their theoretical frameworks, but follow the evidence wherever it leads...and it always seems to lead to atheism and naturalism, no matter how often their interpretations and arguments are refuted. Is that what you call intellectual honesty? What good arguments could conceivably be said to support atheism and naturalism? I don't see that there are any.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"What good arguments could conceivably be said to support atheism and naturalism? I don't see that there are any."
That would be because they require no support, actually.
"they don't bother to pay any heed to their theoretical frameworks"
If by this you mean what I think you mean, the difference between many atheists and you is that we don't accept unintelligible propositions as well formed. Philosobabble with no axiomatic or empirical grounding is just babble.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 The conceit that atheism and naturalism require no support is an intellectually bankrupt position, one moreover, that no major atheistic thinker advances today. Flew was the one who originally pressed this tact, only to abandon it later. Atheists and naturalists who claim that their religion affirms the truth of no proposition at all miss the glaring fact that, to say that a lack of belief is warranted on the basis of a certain condition of evidence in relation to the purported
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"Atheists and naturalists who claim that their religion (...)"
I'm always amused at the way people like you try to counter those who don't share your wishful positions about the world by lumping us in the same bag as you.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 existence of an entity "X", is to ASSERT a proposition ABOUT "X" (e.g. that it is necessarily true that one's lack of belief in the existence of "X" is epistemically justified by an absence of evidence for "X"; that one BELIEVES that “X” is such that an absence of evidence is sufficient to justify a lack of belief in “X’s” existence), It goes without saying that this is NOT self-evidently true and thus bears a significant burden of proof.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"It goes without saying that this is NOT self-evidently true and thus bears a significant burden of proof"
I like how you adorn the statement with the "significant" qualifier.
But this is actually false. While you try to pretend naturalism as a statement within the realm of discussion, it is actually best viewed as a meta-statement about it: Of that which can not be indicated through evidence there is nothing to say about.
People like you enjoy making elaborate statements about (...)
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2
(...)
the ethereal, you just never provide the means to test their consistency, or connection to the actual universe.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 Please enlighten us as to what constitutes the "actual universe"? With which actual universe do you have direct acquaintance? And from what observation do you derive the inference that nothing else exists apart from that which you observe? You just keep begging the question over and over.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"Please enlighten us as to what constitutes the "actual universe"?"
No idea.
"And from what observation do you derive the inference that nothing else exists apart from that which you observe?"
I don't hold to any such proposition. The actual claim, the one I've been actually repeated over and over, is that about that which can't be observed in any way nothing can be said.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, an this is particularly true with respect to God and the supernatural. In any event, negative statements are simply positive affirmations in disguise. The contra positive of "I do not believe God exists" is "I believe God does not exist". ". Transpose the above statements into the terms of symbolic propositional logic and you'll see that they are formal equivalents.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"Transpose the above statements into the terms of symbolic propositional logic and you'll see that they are formal equivalents."
This is actually false, and even idiotic. Contrapositive concerns the relation of "implication" between propositions, not this "believe" symbol. Care to provide a formal axiomatic for that one?
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 Do you really think that such a BELIEF stands in no need of justification?
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
Beliefs are always subject to justification. But in the case of the naturalism, the justification for it is simply that the propositions it produces are the only ones that are intelligible. In essence, I would say that the "belief" in naturalism is justified by the fact that all properly rational discourse is naturalistic.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 That naturalism produces propositions which appear intelligible on the basis of, and in terms of, naturalistic ASSUMPTIONS is not a valid argument in favor of it's truth. I would further suggest that it is question-begging in the extreme to first define the scope of "properly rational discourse" in such a way as to conform its limits to the constituitive logical strictures of naturalism, and then go on to assert that, "therefore" such discourse supports belief in naturalism.
djs259 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" I would further suggest that it is question-begging in the extreme to first define the scope of "properly rational discourse" in such a way as to conform its limits to the constituitive logical strictures of naturalism, and then go on to assert that, "therefore" such discourse supports belief in naturalism."
My very first sentence to you was that naturalism requires no support. There is no "therefore".
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
I will give you a chance to restate your case.
Quite frankly, you chose to dig your heels in a completely indefensible position. You are in fact trying to argue that that which can be given no evidence for should have a place within the realm of discourse. This is a position I doubt many apologists would try to defend (or admit is the case of god), but if that's where you want to stand I'll have no problem to continue telling you why it's silly.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 I argued no such thing. If you exercised a bit of subtlety, you'd see that what I'm actually arguing against is your assertion that you can justifiably delimit that which counts AS EVIDENCE in terms of a its conformity to a criterion of meaning grounded exclusively on propositions whose content can be verified empirically or axiomatically. The criterion itself is self-refuting. So we're not exactly just going to let you assume it just because it suits your naturalistic prejudice.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"The criterion itself is self-refuting."
I tire of your silliness. Try to explain why. Formally. Maybe then you will learn something.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 Because if the statement "only those propositions whose contents can be empirically or axiomatically verified can be said to be meaningful and true" was in fact taken to be TRUE, then it would exclude from possibility the truth and meaningfulness of the statement itself. This is because the statement cannot be empirically verified nor is it axiomatic. It's just an arbitrary definition of meaningfullness. ONE THAT HAPPENS TO BE SELF REFUTING.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
Now, as you might have noticed. That little "proof" you just performed occurred because you allowed the proposition "only those propositions whose contents can be empirically or axiomatically verified can be said to be meaningful and true" to be self referential. I also noticed that you purposefully CHANGED my statements to "meaningful and true" as opposed to merely "meaningful", or the trick wouldn't really work. Like I said on the other post, you're just abusing the "liar's paradox".
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 My argument works just dandy even with the word "true" taken out. The principle doesn't live up to the very standard it purports to assert as absolute.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"My argument works just dandy even with the word "true" taken out."
Nope, as the statement is meaningful for empirical reasons. You know from experience the meaning of the terms involved.
"The principle doesn't live up to the very standard it purports to assert as absolute."
Do read on the liar's paradox, will you? All you are really doing is disallowing the possibility of making assertions about the realm of discourse by interpreting those assertions as self referential.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 Yes, but the point is that the statement comprised by those terms cannot itself be empirically verified.
And I don't see that is has anything to do with the Liar's Paradox as it is not a statement that can be neither true nor false.
djs259 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djs259
"Yes, but the point is that the statement comprised by those terms cannot itself be empirically verified."
But for it to actually be self-refuting you need to engorge the statement to "meaningful and true", which is what I was saying.
"And I don't see that is has anything to do with the Liar's Paradox as it is not a statement that can be neither true nor false."
That's because you don't know Russel's Paradox and it's treatment.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
And when I said "it was exactly the liar's paradox" I really meant that the situation is the same kind you have in Russel's paradox with the "set of all sets": you derive a contradiction by allowing rules to be used as meta-rules.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 The verification principle you are attempting to defend pretends to assert precisely that--a "meta-rule".
djs259 10 months ago
@uvauva2 In so far as the verification principle you articulated purports to set forth the limits of meaningful discourse, and to thus impose rigorous strictures upon what kinds of discourse can be meaningfully employed in constituting valid logical rules, it does, in fact, serve a regulative meta-logical principle; it acts as a "meta-rule".
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"it acts as a "meta-rule"."
No. The "verification principle" I articulated is meant to apply to propositions that are directly concerned with the "universe". There is a difference between discussing that which does or not exist in the "universe" and discussing discourse itself.
But this all ultimately relates to the following question: what does it mean for a statement to be meaningful. How do you go about verifying that your statements are so?
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 The problem here is that existential statements are a type of discourse. And if you arbitrarily proscribe that content which is, in principle, non-empirically or axiomatically verifiable, then you end up asserting naturalism as a truism. To say that everything we say exists must be, in principle, empirically verifiable is just a loaded way of saying "only that which we experience is real". I don't think we have any good reason to believe that.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"asserting naturalism as a truism"
Ultimately I would say it is. And, quite frankly, as you are posting on a thread dishing on Ehrman, it's clear to me you are a christian whose god DOES cause empirical acts.
"To say that everything we say exists must be, in principle, empirically verifiable is just a loaded way of saying "only that which we experience is real"."
I do not accept the rephrasing. "only that which we experience do we know how to discuss".
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 First it was: a) "only propositions whose contents are empirically or axiomatically verifiable can be considered meaningful"
Then it was: b) only existential propositions (statements about the universe) must be empirically verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Now it's c) "only that which we experience do we know how to discuss".
Which one is it?
All three propositions are palpably false. So what is it that you are discussing when you talk about past and future events. Babble?
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"So what is it that you are discussing when you talk about past and future events. Babble?"
Is that supposed to be a refutation of anything? Predictions about the future are based on experience.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 We have no empirical verifiable acquaintance with historical events. Verificationism turns historical statements into gobbledygook. That's just one reason to believe it's false.
djs259 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djs259
"Verificationism turns historical statements into gobbledygook"
I don't know exactly what verificationism is supposed to be, or if you are presenting it faithfully, and I hardly care. You might try to stop arguing against a position I don't hold.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
And I'm gonna sleep now. More later. But do try to explain the meaning of meaning.
uvauva2 10 months ago
For one thing, our very acquaintance with the external world or other minds is inherently indirect and inferential. Neither can be empirically verified. We understand, notwithstanding, to what kinds of things these words and phrases apply. I could say the same thing with respect to propositions which contain words like "God" or "soul". Barring some explicit or implicit contradiction that can be demonstrated, it's not clear how such things could be summarily dismissed as meaningless.
djs259 10 months ago
@uvauva2 This form of the verification principle (referring to our “direct” experience of the universe) doesn’t withstand much critical scrutiny either, as it purports to affirm a proposition about an entire class of propositions, namely existential propositions (since our knowledge of the universe is not of some such “thing” as the “universe”, but only of “true” propositions about that “thing” which we describe as the “universe”); that they are cognitively meaningful if and only if they admit
djs259 10 months ago
@uvauva2 of empirical verification. Take for instance proposition P, that “x exists”. The principle for which you argue affirms the following proposition about P: “It is the case [it is true] that for any given proposition P, P is meaningful if and only if P is empirically verifiable”.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
" “It is the case [it is true] that for any given proposition P, P is meaningful if and only if P is empirically verifiable”."
I more or less agree with this. Though I would be careful to add "to us" in "meaningful".
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 ”. I would submit that there is no way around the fact that to affirm the verification principle is to affirm, not discourse about types of existent “things”, but discourse about a type of discourse; to assert, moreover, certain well-defined limits to this very type of discourse. And in the case of the VP, this is a totally arbitrary delimitation.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
But quite frankly, all this line of reasoning is as idiotic as it is dishonest. Your goal with this "refuting" of my "principle" is to fit your favorite example of supposedly meaningful propositions that don't fall under my it. Given that you have those cherished examples one wonders why not argue for them directly.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 What is idiotic is to assert a criterion of meaning that can't even cut muster on its own definition of meaning, and then claim that we should adopt it on the basis of the fact that, if we assume it's true it allows us to derive a bunch of conclusions entailed directly by those assumptions.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"What is idiotic is to assert a criterion of meaning that can't even cut muster on its own definition of meaning"
You have been the one designating my statement (or rather, your own phrasing) as a principle/criterion, which I do not think is what it is (which is why I made sure to add " "). I view it as an observation: formal deductive or empirical claims whose meaning is defined in precise enough terms to be labelled as knowledge. If others exist, present them.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 "I view it as an observation"
In that case, what your argument amounts to is the observation that empirically verifiable propositions can be empirically verified. But how do we get from there to "only empirically verifiable propositions can be labelled as knowledge". I could argue that propositions asserting the existence of other minds resist empirical modes of verification (since I have no direct acquaintance with any such thing). Are we then forced to plead irrationality here?
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"In that case, what your argument amounts to is the observation that empirically verifiable propositions can be empirically verified."
No. The observation is that only empirically verifiable propositions have been shown to be verifiable AT ALL.
I'm unaware of any other proposed verification mechanism for other types of claims.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
"I could argue that propositions asserting the existence of other minds resist empirical modes of verification"
The only relevance of the "existence" of other minds is, I would say, it's consequences. I have no problem in asserting that other minds exist because I observe other people acting and speaking in ways that I find consistent in ways similar to my own. This coupled with the fact that we possess entirely similar physical structures and were "produced" by similar biological(...)
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
(...) processes makes it reasonable to think that they achieve their similar behavior through similar processes.
But I will point out that I find the question ultimately irrelevant. Should you happen to be a computer that successfully passed the Turing test (and the fact that you are apparently always online seems to increase the odds), I do not see that as diminishing the value of the conversation.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 I'm not arguing anything but an epistemological point. For all I know, if God does exist, our language might very well be inadequate to the task of describing him, but VP claims to dispense with it all in a dishonest way.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
Stop harping on the VP. If you want to argue it find someone else.
"For all I know, if God does exist, our language might very well be inadequate to the task of describing him"
And this could be true of a whole amount of things. Although the moment we forgo the adequacy of language on a topic, on should wonder what it means to say that such "topic" exists, as that statement is formed inside our language.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 VP is exactly what you are asserting, and in its most naive form. It may just be the case that not all putatively meaningful statements can be empirically verified. If that appears to be the case (and the bulk of contemporary analytic philosophers agree that it is), then so much the worse for empirical verification as a necessary condition of meaning. In any event, the principle isn't self evidently true, as I said, nor empirically verifiable.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"It may just be the case that not all putatively meaningful statements can be empirically verified. If that appears to be the case (and the bulk of contemporary analytic philosophers agree that it is),"
This is a question that decidedly isn't to be decided through vote. I would even say that philosophers are biased towards not excising those branches of their field who seem to be no more than babble, and point out again that I'm not very impressed by philosophers as a whole (...)
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2
(...) . I think their field suffers from the lack of the need of "reality checks" that you find in science and even in math (that and the fact that I think that any philosopher making statements about logic that is unaware or doesn't understand some fundamental theorems on the subject, like Godel's incompleteness theorem, is bound make very naive claims).
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 It just asserts an arbitrary condition that cannot be maintained without subverting the conditions of its own meaningfulness--conditions which it asserts as universal to all propositions of which we predicate the term "meaningful".
djs259 10 months ago
I couldn't very well argue for any of my "cherished examples" if all talk of them is ruled out of hand as "gibberish" from the oustset, now could I? :-)
djs259 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djs259
"I couldn't very well argue for any of my "cherished examples" if all talk of them is ruled out of hand as "gibberish" from the oustset, now could I? :-)"
Of course you could. Just provide me when a method to address their meaning and truth value. That is the whole reason why your talks of dogma is just a straw man to make you feel comfortable that naturalists are unreasonable.
And I should point out that I disagree that either god or souls are really non-empirical, as most models(...)
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
(...) that people present of them have definite testable (at least in principle) empirical consequences.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 . How could we, in principle, go about verifying the meaningfulness of the aforementioned proposition? It clearly isn’t analytic. Neither does it refer to any discrete body of sense data, but to a body of PROPOSITIONS of a certain type (those that assert P). It therefore seems to follow that, if true, it would be as cognitively meaningless as the very “babble” you have decried.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"How could we, in principle, go about verifying the meaningfulness of the aforementioned proposition?"
For that we require some "working definition" of what it means for a proposition to be meaningful, which is what I have been trying to extract from your for awhile. We seem to be working under the assumption that there is a predicate " - is meaningful" which can be applied to a proposition "P". How do we evaluate it's truth value?
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 The point is that it can't be verified, which is why it doesn't work as a criterion of "meaning". Whatever principle there may be for properly adjudicating between those props which predicate the word "meaning" of a something, it surely cannot be that asserted by the verification principle.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
I can't cease to be amused that you truly try to defend a refutation without premises.
"The point is that it can't be verified, which is why it doesn't work as a criterion of "meaning"."
In an absolute logical sense NOTHING can be ultimately verified. But this principal does not purport absoluteness. Like I said, it concerns a range of "existencial" claims, and is a practical principal, not a dogmatic one. Present a relevant example, and the principle will change accordingly.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 You are confusing actual verification and verification "in principle", here. The VP can't be verified in principle, though it claims that all meaningful propositions must be. And that includes existential propositions.
djs259 10 months ago
@uvauva2 . To say that a universally quantified proposition about propositions (which the VP is, in every form—unless of course we are arguing for it as a heuristic possessing no strict logical force) is exempt from the necessary implications of the proposition it asserts, is just special-pleading on behalf of the VP and the unfounded naturalistic prejudice it embodies.
djs259 10 months ago
@uvauva2 All universally quantified propositions which assert facts about the nature of propositions will necessarily be self-referential. Bot not self-refuting. Therein lies your problem.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"All universally quantified propositions which assert facts about the nature of propositions will necessarily be self-referential. Bot not self-refuting. Therein lies your problem."
The fundamental question is whether any such propositions CAN even exist. Like I said, this question has had mathematical treatments, motivated, among other things, by Russel's paradox. One of the solutions is to have a layering of propositions.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 You haven't answered the point at all, just pushed the question back further: If it is possible that such propositions could not even exist, then how could we meaningfully assert anything about the nature of such propositions, namely that "that they can't even exist", on the verification principle? AFAIK, by the end of his life Russell had scuttled verificationism along with much of the rest of the intellectual detritus that came out of the Vienna Circle. You should follow suit.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"AFAIK, by the end of his life Russell had scuttled verificationism along with much of the rest of the intellectual detritus that came out of the Vienna Circle. You should follow suit."
You are so cute.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@djs259
"You haven't answered the point at all, just pushed the question back further: If it is possible that such propositions could not even exist, then how could we meaningfully assert anything about the nature of such propositions, namely that "that they can't even exist", on the verification principle?"
You are just really going in circles. Simply try to address my question about what it means for something to be meaningful. I can also play recurrence.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 I have made no claims as to what, if any, conditions would qualify a proposition as "meaningful", but suggested that the criterion you are asserting is arbitrary and self-refuting. I'm not obligated to propound a theory of meaning to show that yours doesn't work.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
" I'm not obligated to propound a theory of meaning to show that yours doesn't work."
So "refuting" a proposition involving the term "meaning" does not require asserting properties of it? Is your refutation then formal? Does it work with "meaning" replaced by "banana"?. As this is not the case, in your very "refutation" you are assuming premises relating to "meaning". Expound on them. In other words: turn your "refutation" into a syllogism.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 This is just a bunch of hand-waving. My refutation does not assume any defining characteristics of meaning, only points out that the one you assert ends up, on your own assumptions, asserting NOTHING by the very definition it proposes.
djs259 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djs259
"This is just a bunch of hand-waving. My refutation does not assume any defining characteristics of meaning"
This is absurd. Again, is it a formal refutation? Does it work with "banana"?
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 And please do drop this patronizing tone. Feigning an aura of broad philosophical erudition by sprinkling your answers with arcane analytic jargon, while dancing around the arguments and ignoring substantive points is not making you look like any less of a poseur.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"Feigning an aura of broad philosophical erudition". No, that is what YOU are doing.
I happen to be a mathematician, and never found philosophical education to be of any relevance. The way I see it, philosophers would do well to learn the foundations of mathematical logic, as then they would not be so quick so produce statements that mean nothing.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 Really? You would do well to read up on the various philosophical treatments of verificationism. As I said, there is a reason why it lost broad support decades ago, even among its most enthusiastic endorsers, like Ayer, Wittgenstein, and Russel. Apart from the fact that it renders statements that obviously convey intelligible information into meaningless nonsense by terminological fiat, it also happens to be self-refuting.You can't build knowledge upon a foundation of self-refutation
djs259 10 months ago
"You can't build knowledge upon a foundation of self-refutation"
Yawn.
And what does "knowledge" even mean? What form of "knowledge" deserves to be called so without any empirical verification? Without checking its propositions against that to which they refer to see if they are indeed true?
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 You're just begging the question, yet again. I don't concede that one can only have "knowledge" of things that can be empirically verified. This is the very controversy of verificationism. I've explained why. It turns ordinary language into gobbledygook and is self-refuting. Moreover, against what does one, on this view, check his propositions against? Experience? No, more propositions.
djs259 10 months ago
@djs259
"I don't concede that one can only have "knowledge" of things that can be empirically verified. "
Then it is your task to present a relevant example, and explain HOW you KNOW it.
And I'm out for now. Talking with someone.
uvauva2 10 months ago
@uvauva2 I don't know it. But I know that the principle you cite to justify the claim that we can't is not probative in the least.