Say you are asked to measure a room. You are given a measuring rod. However you find that if you break the rod in half you have to make fewer decisions about how to go around corners (simpler) and your measurement is more precise.
Therefore the justified knowledge about the size of the room is that it is infinite, because successively halving the rod yields simpler and more accurate measurements.
Would you agree?
(all definitive statements of knowledge either start from or lead to absurdity)
DarkwingScooter, your example applies only to the accuracy criterion; the simplicity criterion is used to break ties in accuracy. You are correct that a measuring device of finer precision will yield a more accurate measurement. Say, for example, a 1" device yields a measurement of 2", a 1/2" device yields a measurement of 2.5", a 1/4" device yields a measurement of 2.75", etc. Your measurement will not approach infinity but the length of the object that you're measuring.
@UnderstandHumanLife "your example applies only to the accuracy criterion; the simplicity criterion is used to break ties in accuracy"
Astute pickup.
But consider that with a longer measuring rod you have to make more decisions about how to go ridges and what surfaces to measure.
If I were to tell you that the technique for measuring the length of a room is to trace along the edge of a wall from point to point for example. In effect there are more and more complex decisions with a longer rod.
@DarkwingScooter You know, Darkwing, from the comments you've made to me, and what comments youtube has let me search, I have the gotten the impression of you as someone who doesn't really believe that we can "know" anything. And this would certainly explain some of your comments.
Like, for example, how you think that simply saying to me "THEORY is different than REALITY" is somehow the end-all-be-all of arguments.
DarkwingScooter, you say, "All definitive statements of knowledge either start from or lead to absurdity." That is a statement of knowledge that nullifies itself, so why make it?
@UnderstandHumanLife "That is a statement of knowledge that nullifies itself, so why make it?"
The beauty of logic is that as long as you don't ASSUME a contradiction you are fine, you never have to worry about the contingent "truthiness" of your knowledge.
If A then B
Even if we cannot logically express what must be true for A to be true and in one or more sense A is both true or false, B is nevertheless true provided we ASSUME A to be true.
DarkwingScooter, logic is a tool for guiding our reasoning process to help us discern knowledge, but you seem to think that it is a tool for making meaningless statements. Aside from that, I don't think that what you say makes any sense.
At some level, even if you are not aware, you are making a tacit and unjustifiable decision regarding the optimum rod length for performing a given task.
It is because this decision is ultimately unjustifiable that it cannot be said to be either necessarily or contingently true. If that is the case and you assert its truth you are asserting an ultimately absurd statement (here's the kicker) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SIMPLICITY.
DarkwingScooter, as I said before, your example applies only to the accuracy criterion, not the simplicity criterion. Your line of reasoning is irrelevant to my theory of knowledge. Aside from that, I don't think that your line of reasoning makes any sense.
As per your definition of Knowledge, the simplest and most accurate conclusion would be in fact, yes. ALL the gumballs in the machine are RED.
My point is that just because you can reproduce the same event ten thousand times doesn't mean you can have real knowledge of the nature of that event. You may be right at times, and you may be wrong, your definition of knowledge leaves 100% certainty out of the question.
First, all knowledge comes from reason applied to experience. However, experience encompasses all human experience, including perception, thoughts, imagination, and emotion, so this is not traditional empiricism. It is obvious that experience, in this comprehensive sense, is all that we have to work with in creating knowledge, and what we do with experience is apply reason in order to predict our future experience. So, obviously, all knowledge is the result of reason applied to experience.
Second, knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for predicting our observations, where an observation is a portion of our experience that we arbitrarily identify as an observation.
Third, in section 2.1 of my book, I prove that reality is indeterministic. This implies that it is impossible to predict the future with certainty except for what is logically necessary. Our knowledge at any particular time is given by our simplest, most accurate predictor model. That's all that our knowledge of our experience -- and hence of events -- can ever be. Thus, of logical necessity, predicting the future is inherently probabilistic.
Applying the foregoing to your example, you are correct: 100% certainty is impossible, except for what is logically necessary. The most we can say is that all of the balls thus far have been red, so in the absence of other info, our prediction is that all the balls are red. But our prediction is not a statement that they're all red; it's merely our best prediction. This is all that knowledge of the future can ever be, except for knowledge of what is logically necessary.
Empiricism then, is an adequate (and comprehensive) vehicle for knowledge of everything?
Knowledge is the 'Best' (simplest and most accurate) predictor of observations. I'm with you, but consider the following...
Imagine an entirely non-transparent giant gumball machine with hundreds of Billions of gumballs inside...but we don't know their color. We do ten thousand tests...we reach in and each time we pull a RED gumball. Is it accurate to conclude that ALL the gumballs are RED?
TCC, PBS: I'm finding it impossible to carry on a coherent conversation in sufficient detail in this YouTube facility because comments are limited to 500 characters and sometimes the YouTube interface won't even post my comments! As a result, I've posted a discussion on this topic on my amazon . com page. Please join that discussion if you wish. I've read that if I include a link in a comment, it won't post, so to see the discussion, go to amazon . com and search for "Philip Bitar".
You are defining yourself right. When presented with an alternative possibility you just reject out of hand by appeal to a definition that I for one don't accept.
For example, do you include false beliefs in what you call "knowledge"?
TCC, you've got to think more deeply about the concept of knowledge than you have thus far. You're tossing thots off the top of your head that are not carefully formulated. You think that my model is deficient, but the problem is that you have yet to think deeply about the subject. If we continue this discussion on amazon . com, I think that you'll soon see why my model of knowledge makes intuitive sense and why it will satisfy any challenge that you can think of posing.
To TCC: PBS stated "A god capable of creating the universe would be able to communicate anything it wanted, to anyone it wanted." We're talking about God communicating to people. So I asked, "Assuming that God exists, please tell me what he could do to convince you that he exists and that he is communicating to you." We're not talking about God robotically manipulating your mind; we're talking about your acquisition of knowledge via your pursuit of knowledge. Please answer the question.
2. By what criteria would you conclude that your beliefs are false?
Not sure of the relevence of this question. I might never conclude that my beliefs are false.
How I would do so, if indeed I did, would be entirely dependant on what it was I believed. For example, the method by which "God" was communicating and what was communicated.
See you are making a simple logical mistake here. You essentially asking me to prove you wrong. I am saying that you have not shown what you are saying to be true. The burden of proof lies with you.....
But for indulgence sake:
1. Assuming that God exists.....the logical question here is what God. I'll assume the God of the Abrahamic religions. This God is supposed to be Omnipotent. This God can do anything. He can make you believe as act in itself. He could talk directly to your mind.
You're no longer on the topic. The topic is "What exactly is knowledge?" In the video I present a few scenarios to illustrate the character of knowledge as presented in my book. All knowledge is the result of reason applied to experience, and, more specifically, knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations. This applies to knowledge of God. Hence, a person believes in God or doesn't believe in God as per their best model of their observations.
But my examples show that this is logically impossible, and my theory of knowledge explains why.
You can keep saying that but it isn't getting any truer.
Take this example. A person dives under the sea and when they surface they communicate the knowledge they have learned about it to another person. The second person has essentially had the knowledge communicated to them. What was stated was that a "god" entitry could be capable of communicating knowledge to people.
"believe that if God exists, he could directly communicate this fact to people. But my examples show that this is logically impossible, and my theory of knowledge explains why" is priceless.
You offer no explanation at all. You axiomatically assume that knowledge must take exactly one form, therefore knowledge must take exactly one form :)
I personally believe that the notion of "revalation" is ridiculous but it cannot be proven so.
I don't axiomatically assume that knowledge must take one form. I apply reason to our experience in order to analyze the nature of knowledge. As a result, it becomes evident that knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations. I can, of course, present only a few main ideas of the theory in the videos. My book presents the theory in painstaking detail.
Since knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations, the concept of revelation must be defined in these terms. That is, we will conclude that an experience is the result of divine revelation if doing so yields the simplest most accurate model for predicting the relevant observations.
Also, your examples in the beginning; when you offer possible explanations they are hilariously close-minded. "A hoax of the devil", come on mate you can do better than that. Not being able to explain something offer exactly zero evidence to any positive assertion or hypothesis.
I think I'll stick with Aristotle
"Justified true belief"
What you refer to "Reason applied to experience" might well produce false beliefs. This may be the source of knowledge but it is the source of falsehoods too
Knowledge is necessarily the result of reason applied to experience because experience is all that we have to work with, and knowledge must be rational. That's easy to see. What's not so easy to see is the precise character of knowledge. I establish that in my book, and I present a few highlights in the videos.
You say, "Reason applied to experience might well produce false beliefs." By what criteria would you conclude that your beliefs are false?
Ooh, lots of errors in there mate. Occums razor has nothing to do with "shaving off" complication. It simply states that "All other things being equal the simplest explanation is preffered (in the sense of likely correct)" This is not always true of course, sometimes the more complex model is correct. You also badly misrepresent the reasons for the supremacy of the heliocentric model of the solar system. It was not accepted because it was simpler, it was accepted because it was far more accurate
My theory establishes that knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations. Without the simplicity criterion, knowledge can become idiotic while remaining predictively accurate.
To illustrate, without the simplicity criterion, we can assume a modern understanding of the cosmos and augment it by saying that the world is really flat and is resting on the back of a turtle and that we suffer a systematic delusion.
"I'll be pleased to respond to any rational challenge that a viewer wishes to offer, but you have offered none"
come on philip, i thought my extended critique would be worth a reply at least. I am genuinely curious as to what all this really was supposed to be about!
Thank you for taking time to think more carefully about the issues. You say, "A god capable of creating the universe would be able to communicate anything it wanted, to anyone it wanted." Assuming that God exists, please tell me what he could do to convince you that he exists and that he is communicating to you.
philip, i have decided to resist the urge to answer this question. the reason i am no longer interested in conversing with you is that i watched the opening of your series, where you say so serenely "don't worry, I have figured out the meaning of life"..... anything which follows such a statement, as intricately logical as it may seem, is the product of madness, and i sincerely hope you seek the help you need. please do not reply to this comment or contact me again.
No, i must confess i did not understand your examples. I didnt understand the thrust of them. I am not an intellectual. I am an atheist, or, at a stretch which i very, very rarely make, and only when pushed, a deist, like many of a scientific mindset. I dont see how it is possible to 'prove' anything, logically, about an entity, any entity, if you have zero definite knowlege even of that entity's existence. Much less can I see why you would want to do so.
Also I have an immense problem with this your statement 'Most people... believe that if God exists, he could directly communicate this fact to people. But my examples show that this is logically impossible'.
Beyond the fact that the existence of god is logically impossible, or as improbable as a thing can be without actually being provably false, I cannot imagine the basis of such an outlandish statement.
A god capable of creating the universe would be able to communicate anything it wanted, to anyone it wanted. It would not need a big book marked 'god' to do so. To suppose this would be the preferred method of communication of an omniscient being seems to me to betray a monumental failiure of imagination. Sorry if this seems rude, but I am simply attempting to communicate honestly. Apologies also for the ahmedinejad crack, that was a cheap shot :)
at roughly 2.40 you reveal that the point of the examples is to show 'there is no such thing as automatic knowlege'. this is glaringly obvious; what is less obvious to me is how your examples illustrate this redundant point.
3.25 - example one i'd agree could be considered a divine revelation, my other conclusion was that the news report was a hoax of some kind. but a hoax by satan?? Didn't occur to me for one second. this would only occur to someone of a blinkered theistic mindset.
example number two: my response, to finding myself conscious of my hypothetical 'expected afterlife' would be to suppose i was either dead and experiencing the afterlife or was experiencing some kind of hallucination. Again, being the victim of a hoax by satan did not enter my head for a moment. I had to try very hard to even imagine what it would be like to be someone with any expectation of an afterlife as in truth i expect to be no more aware of being dead than i am aware of undreaming asleep
to example three: i can give my response very simply, and very quickly: zero, zero, zero. This is not 'automatic knowlege'; it is personal knowlege which fits all the rest of your subsequent incredibly longwinded statements regarding the nature of knowlege, none of which are inaccurate, but all of which are fairly obvious and quite redundant. You then infuriatingly never return to example 3 to explain why it was raised. What is the point of all this philip? I have learned nothing. thus: 1star :(
as you seem like a reasonable guy i gave this video the benefit of the doubt (doubt which filled my mind immediately on hearing your first 'example') and continued watching to the end. Unfortunately i have to tell you that your 'examples' made no sense at all, beyond forming part of this longwinded journey through a succession of statements of the glaringly obvious. This gets one star, and that's purely for having the temerity to wear a beard that makes you look so much like ahmedinejad.
I'll be pleased to respond to any rational challenge that a viewer wishes to offer, but you have offered none. What you have declared as glaringly obvious, most people do not believe. Most people -- atheists as well as theists -- believe that if God exists, he could directly communicate this fact to people. But my examples show that this is logically impossible, and my theory of knowledge explains why. I'm forced to draw the conclusion that you haven't thought deeply about the issues.
Say you are asked to measure a room. You are given a measuring rod. However you find that if you break the rod in half you have to make fewer decisions about how to go around corners (simpler) and your measurement is more precise.
Therefore the justified knowledge about the size of the room is that it is infinite, because successively halving the rod yields simpler and more accurate measurements.
Would you agree?
(all definitive statements of knowledge either start from or lead to absurdity)
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
DarkwingScooter, your example applies only to the accuracy criterion; the simplicity criterion is used to break ties in accuracy. You are correct that a measuring device of finer precision will yield a more accurate measurement. Say, for example, a 1" device yields a measurement of 2", a 1/2" device yields a measurement of 2.5", a 1/4" device yields a measurement of 2.75", etc. Your measurement will not approach infinity but the length of the object that you're measuring.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
@UnderstandHumanLife "your example applies only to the accuracy criterion; the simplicity criterion is used to break ties in accuracy"
Astute pickup.
But consider that with a longer measuring rod you have to make more decisions about how to go ridges and what surfaces to measure.
If I were to tell you that the technique for measuring the length of a room is to trace along the edge of a wall from point to point for example. In effect there are more and more complex decisions with a longer rod.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter You know, Darkwing, from the comments you've made to me, and what comments youtube has let me search, I have the gotten the impression of you as someone who doesn't really believe that we can "know" anything. And this would certainly explain some of your comments.
Like, for example, how you think that simply saying to me "THEORY is different than REALITY" is somehow the end-all-be-all of arguments.
pjnlsn 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter You seem to ascribe to some kind of philosophy of unknowing.
Would you agree?
pjnlsn 9 months ago
DarkwingScooter, you say, "All definitive statements of knowledge either start from or lead to absurdity." That is a statement of knowledge that nullifies itself, so why make it?
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
@UnderstandHumanLife "That is a statement of knowledge that nullifies itself, so why make it?"
The beauty of logic is that as long as you don't ASSUME a contradiction you are fine, you never have to worry about the contingent "truthiness" of your knowledge.
If A then B
Even if we cannot logically express what must be true for A to be true and in one or more sense A is both true or false, B is nevertheless true provided we ASSUME A to be true.
No nullification, that's the beauty of logic.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
DarkwingScooter, logic is a tool for guiding our reasoning process to help us discern knowledge, but you seem to think that it is a tool for making meaningless statements. Aside from that, I don't think that what you say makes any sense.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
@UnderstandHumanLife Effectively this is an infinite regress argument.
At some level, even if you are not aware, you are making a tacit and unjustifiable decision regarding the optimum rod length for performing a given task.
It is because this decision is ultimately unjustifiable that it cannot be said to be either necessarily or contingently true. If that is the case and you assert its truth you are asserting an ultimately absurd statement (here's the kicker) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SIMPLICITY.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
DarkwingScooter, as I said before, your example applies only to the accuracy criterion, not the simplicity criterion. Your line of reasoning is irrelevant to my theory of knowledge. Aside from that, I don't think that your line of reasoning makes any sense.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
As per your definition of Knowledge, the simplest and most accurate conclusion would be in fact, yes. ALL the gumballs in the machine are RED.
My point is that just because you can reproduce the same event ten thousand times doesn't mean you can have real knowledge of the nature of that event. You may be right at times, and you may be wrong, your definition of knowledge leaves 100% certainty out of the question.
VforVideo 1 year ago
First, all knowledge comes from reason applied to experience. However, experience encompasses all human experience, including perception, thoughts, imagination, and emotion, so this is not traditional empiricism. It is obvious that experience, in this comprehensive sense, is all that we have to work with in creating knowledge, and what we do with experience is apply reason in order to predict our future experience. So, obviously, all knowledge is the result of reason applied to experience.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
Second, knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for predicting our observations, where an observation is a portion of our experience that we arbitrarily identify as an observation.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
Third, in section 2.1 of my book, I prove that reality is indeterministic. This implies that it is impossible to predict the future with certainty except for what is logically necessary. Our knowledge at any particular time is given by our simplest, most accurate predictor model. That's all that our knowledge of our experience -- and hence of events -- can ever be. Thus, of logical necessity, predicting the future is inherently probabilistic.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
Applying the foregoing to your example, you are correct: 100% certainty is impossible, except for what is logically necessary. The most we can say is that all of the balls thus far have been red, so in the absence of other info, our prediction is that all the balls are red. But our prediction is not a statement that they're all red; it's merely our best prediction. This is all that knowledge of the future can ever be, except for knowledge of what is logically necessary.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
Empiricism then, is an adequate (and comprehensive) vehicle for knowledge of everything?
Knowledge is the 'Best' (simplest and most accurate) predictor of observations. I'm with you, but consider the following...
Imagine an entirely non-transparent giant gumball machine with hundreds of Billions of gumballs inside...but we don't know their color. We do ten thousand tests...we reach in and each time we pull a RED gumball. Is it accurate to conclude that ALL the gumballs are RED?
VforVideo 1 year ago
TCC, PBS: I'm finding it impossible to carry on a coherent conversation in sufficient detail in this YouTube facility because comments are limited to 500 characters and sometimes the YouTube interface won't even post my comments! As a result, I've posted a discussion on this topic on my amazon . com page. Please join that discussion if you wish. I've read that if I include a link in a comment, it won't post, so to see the discussion, go to amazon . com and search for "Philip Bitar".
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
You are defining yourself right. When presented with an alternative possibility you just reject out of hand by appeal to a definition that I for one don't accept.
For example, do you include false beliefs in what you call "knowledge"?
TheCelticChimp 1 year ago
I'll repeat what I said before, "By what criteria would you conclude that beliefs are false?"
As for "defining myself right", please go to the amazon . com discussion where I can make a statement of reasonable length.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
TCC, you've got to think more deeply about the concept of knowledge than you have thus far. You're tossing thots off the top of your head that are not carefully formulated. You think that my model is deficient, but the problem is that you have yet to think deeply about the subject. If we continue this discussion on amazon . com, I think that you'll soon see why my model of knowledge makes intuitive sense and why it will satisfy any challenge that you can think of posing.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
To TCC: PBS stated "A god capable of creating the universe would be able to communicate anything it wanted, to anyone it wanted." We're talking about God communicating to people. So I asked, "Assuming that God exists, please tell me what he could do to convince you that he exists and that he is communicating to you." We're not talking about God robotically manipulating your mind; we're talking about your acquisition of knowledge via your pursuit of knowledge. Please answer the question.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
Note: The above comment is supposed to be a reply to TCC's last comment. But the YouTube interface has bugs and won't post it as such.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. By what criteria would you conclude that your beliefs are false?
Not sure of the relevence of this question. I might never conclude that my beliefs are false.
How I would do so, if indeed I did, would be entirely dependant on what it was I believed. For example, the method by which "God" was communicating and what was communicated.
TheCelticChimp 1 year ago
See you are making a simple logical mistake here. You essentially asking me to prove you wrong. I am saying that you have not shown what you are saying to be true. The burden of proof lies with you.....
But for indulgence sake:
1. Assuming that God exists.....the logical question here is what God. I'll assume the God of the Abrahamic religions. This God is supposed to be Omnipotent. This God can do anything. He can make you believe as act in itself. He could talk directly to your mind.
TheCelticChimp 1 year ago
You're no longer on the topic. The topic is "What exactly is knowledge?" In the video I present a few scenarios to illustrate the character of knowledge as presented in my book. All knowledge is the result of reason applied to experience, and, more specifically, knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations. This applies to knowledge of God. Hence, a person believes in God or doesn't believe in God as per their best model of their observations.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
you can see that it is not logic to claim a thing is logically impossible because no evidence is available for it, right?
TheCelticChimp 2 years ago
But my examples show that this is logically impossible, and my theory of knowledge explains why.
You can keep saying that but it isn't getting any truer.
Take this example. A person dives under the sea and when they surface they communicate the knowledge they have learned about it to another person. The second person has essentially had the knowledge communicated to them. What was stated was that a "god" entitry could be capable of communicating knowledge to people.
TheCelticChimp 2 years ago
In order to attempt to make progress in this interchange, could you please answer the questions that I asked below?
1. Assuming that God exists, please tell me what he could do to convince you that he exists and that he is communicating to you.
2. By what criteria would you conclude that your beliefs are false?
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago
Sorry but this
"believe that if God exists, he could directly communicate this fact to people. But my examples show that this is logically impossible, and my theory of knowledge explains why" is priceless.
You offer no explanation at all. You axiomatically assume that knowledge must take exactly one form, therefore knowledge must take exactly one form :)
I personally believe that the notion of "revalation" is ridiculous but it cannot be proven so.
TheCelticChimp 2 years ago
I don't axiomatically assume that knowledge must take one form. I apply reason to our experience in order to analyze the nature of knowledge. As a result, it becomes evident that knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations. I can, of course, present only a few main ideas of the theory in the videos. My book presents the theory in painstaking detail.
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
Since knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations, the concept of revelation must be defined in these terms. That is, we will conclude that an experience is the result of divine revelation if doing so yields the simplest most accurate model for predicting the relevant observations.
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
As for God communicating to us...
Assuming that God exists, please tell me what he could do to convince you that he exists and that he is communicating to you.
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
Also, your examples in the beginning; when you offer possible explanations they are hilariously close-minded. "A hoax of the devil", come on mate you can do better than that. Not being able to explain something offer exactly zero evidence to any positive assertion or hypothesis.
I think I'll stick with Aristotle
"Justified true belief"
What you refer to "Reason applied to experience" might well produce false beliefs. This may be the source of knowledge but it is the source of falsehoods too
TheCelticChimp 2 years ago
Knowledge is necessarily the result of reason applied to experience because experience is all that we have to work with, and knowledge must be rational. That's easy to see. What's not so easy to see is the precise character of knowledge. I establish that in my book, and I present a few highlights in the videos.
You say, "Reason applied to experience might well produce false beliefs." By what criteria would you conclude that your beliefs are false?
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
Ooh, lots of errors in there mate. Occums razor has nothing to do with "shaving off" complication. It simply states that "All other things being equal the simplest explanation is preffered (in the sense of likely correct)" This is not always true of course, sometimes the more complex model is correct. You also badly misrepresent the reasons for the supremacy of the heliocentric model of the solar system. It was not accepted because it was simpler, it was accepted because it was far more accurate
TheCelticChimp 2 years ago
My theory establishes that knowledge is given by the simplest, most accurate predictor model for our observations. Without the simplicity criterion, knowledge can become idiotic while remaining predictively accurate.
To illustrate, without the simplicity criterion, we can assume a modern understanding of the cosmos and augment it by saying that the world is really flat and is resting on the back of a turtle and that we suffer a systematic delusion.
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
Heliocentrism provided a simpler model for predicting astronomical observations.
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
"I'll be pleased to respond to any rational challenge that a viewer wishes to offer, but you have offered none"
come on philip, i thought my extended critique would be worth a reply at least. I am genuinely curious as to what all this really was supposed to be about!
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
Thank you for taking time to think more carefully about the issues. You say, "A god capable of creating the universe would be able to communicate anything it wanted, to anyone it wanted." Assuming that God exists, please tell me what he could do to convince you that he exists and that he is communicating to you.
UnderstandHumanLife 2 years ago
philip, i have decided to resist the urge to answer this question. the reason i am no longer interested in conversing with you is that i watched the opening of your series, where you say so serenely "don't worry, I have figured out the meaning of life"..... anything which follows such a statement, as intricately logical as it may seem, is the product of madness, and i sincerely hope you seek the help you need. please do not reply to this comment or contact me again.
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
i am re-watching your vid to try to understand what you mean.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
No, i must confess i did not understand your examples. I didnt understand the thrust of them. I am not an intellectual. I am an atheist, or, at a stretch which i very, very rarely make, and only when pushed, a deist, like many of a scientific mindset. I dont see how it is possible to 'prove' anything, logically, about an entity, any entity, if you have zero definite knowlege even of that entity's existence. Much less can I see why you would want to do so.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
Also I have an immense problem with this your statement 'Most people... believe that if God exists, he could directly communicate this fact to people. But my examples show that this is logically impossible'.
Beyond the fact that the existence of god is logically impossible, or as improbable as a thing can be without actually being provably false, I cannot imagine the basis of such an outlandish statement.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
A god capable of creating the universe would be able to communicate anything it wanted, to anyone it wanted. It would not need a big book marked 'god' to do so. To suppose this would be the preferred method of communication of an omniscient being seems to me to betray a monumental failiure of imagination. Sorry if this seems rude, but I am simply attempting to communicate honestly. Apologies also for the ahmedinejad crack, that was a cheap shot :)
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
at roughly 2.40 you reveal that the point of the examples is to show 'there is no such thing as automatic knowlege'. this is glaringly obvious; what is less obvious to me is how your examples illustrate this redundant point.
3.25 - example one i'd agree could be considered a divine revelation, my other conclusion was that the news report was a hoax of some kind. but a hoax by satan?? Didn't occur to me for one second. this would only occur to someone of a blinkered theistic mindset.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
example number two: my response, to finding myself conscious of my hypothetical 'expected afterlife' would be to suppose i was either dead and experiencing the afterlife or was experiencing some kind of hallucination. Again, being the victim of a hoax by satan did not enter my head for a moment. I had to try very hard to even imagine what it would be like to be someone with any expectation of an afterlife as in truth i expect to be no more aware of being dead than i am aware of undreaming asleep
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
to example three: i can give my response very simply, and very quickly: zero, zero, zero. This is not 'automatic knowlege'; it is personal knowlege which fits all the rest of your subsequent incredibly longwinded statements regarding the nature of knowlege, none of which are inaccurate, but all of which are fairly obvious and quite redundant. You then infuriatingly never return to example 3 to explain why it was raised. What is the point of all this philip? I have learned nothing. thus: 1star :(
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
as you seem like a reasonable guy i gave this video the benefit of the doubt (doubt which filled my mind immediately on hearing your first 'example') and continued watching to the end. Unfortunately i have to tell you that your 'examples' made no sense at all, beyond forming part of this longwinded journey through a succession of statements of the glaringly obvious. This gets one star, and that's purely for having the temerity to wear a beard that makes you look so much like ahmedinejad.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
I'll be pleased to respond to any rational challenge that a viewer wishes to offer, but you have offered none. What you have declared as glaringly obvious, most people do not believe. Most people -- atheists as well as theists -- believe that if God exists, he could directly communicate this fact to people. But my examples show that this is logically impossible, and my theory of knowledge explains why. I'm forced to draw the conclusion that you haven't thought deeply about the issues.
UnderstandHumanLife 1 year ago