What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Doesn't look like the sidelines to me!

To acknowledge what you do not know – is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don’t – is a display of weakness.

Are you one of the "it's just a theory" types, Frank?

What dilemma do you think I'm facing here? A theory of gravity does not prevent us from knowledge of gravity, does it? "Knowing" is not in conflict with theory.

A
R
T

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4973080)
Quote:
Doesn't look like the sidelines to me!

Poor bay-bee . . . that's what the conjunction "but" means, Frank.

I have in the past hunted down things you had said that you have subsequently denied, such as that agnosticism is a superior position to take, so i could probably find quotes to support what i've written. I wouldn't think you'd need to apologize to anyone--just to be honest about it. However, i don't think you're worth the effort.

Knowing IS NOT in conflict with theory...but a theory is not knowledge.

C'mon, Art, you are going nowhere with the game playing. I asked you if you KNEW that "nothing is unexplainable"...and you indicated you did KNOW.

Now you are suggesting it is a theory.

Earlier, you suggested it was a belief.

Why not just acknowledge that it is not what you KNOW. If you really feel more comfortable calling it a theory or a belief or something else rather than a guess, I will go along with it. But acknowledge it is not what you know. (Unless you actually do know it, in which case, tell us how you know it.)

If you take the entirety of Art's posts he has explained his position. If you choose to take parts of what he said out of context then that suits your position but it is mere sophistry.

You on the other hand have only repeated (as you always do) the same empty words like some cornered politician.

Your defense is none other than the 'god of gaps' defense. Which is no defense at all. History has shown that our improving understanding leads to practical benefits. It has never led to a greater belief in the supernatural... it has only led away from it being thought of as supernatural. If you take all of Art's posts this is what he is saying... you on the other hand are only defending the possibility of myths.

Your philosophy is absurd not superior.

What do you allege is the functional difference between but and however, Frank? Igm has you pegged when he speaks of sophistry. The only sloppiness is in your attempt to suggest there is any significance in it hat makes it "go" to dishonesty.

If you consider that your position is superior, why then did you, but a few months ago, deny that you'd ever said that?

One of those two statements is dishonest.

Maybe you just can't help yourself. It's hilarious, though, because many, many people adopt a position without knowing something to a certitude because they have chosen that position in preference to others. Surely the great arbitrator of what is pretence can understand that.

You don't even get a "nice try" for dodging the substance off what i orginally charged you with as dishonesty.

So what is your point?

I'm not going to play some stupid ******* game in which i have to run off to find quotes of what you've written either because your memory is failing you or your dishonesty is overcoming you. I wrote that you claim you position is superior. You denied that. I searched and quoted more than one post in which you had written exactly that, and you commented that you were surprised that i'd gone to all that trouble.

So this is the game we can expect from you in future, huh, Frank? Whenever your inconsistencies or contradictions are pointed out to you, you'll deny them until someone hunts them down to quote you? We are supposed to work hard to show how chronically dishonest you are? For my part, you're not worth that much effort, especially now that it becomes clear just how dishonest you are willing to be.

I see you get your typical passive-aggressive cheap shot in before playing up your innocence. The point is, and has been since i put my oar in here, that you constantly tell people what they can or can't know. Look at your signatue line.

Without wishing to prejudice Setanta's position I think that he thinks you are an egocentric asshole in seven no trumps.

the reason I have the personal philosophy I have is because it is superior to any others that are on the table. I most assuredly think saying "I do not know" when I do not know IS SUPERIOR to pretending that I do know.

Art, the fact that gravity works is not proof that all theories will work…and you know it.

You have indicated that your supposed knowledge is actually a theory and a belief. That says it all. Some theories prove out; some fall flat—some beliefs hold; some do not. A theory or a belief is not KNOWING…and you could easily have responded to my first question with, “No, I do not KNOW it.” But you didn’t.

Obviously you are going to continue to insist you KNOW “nothing is unexplainable”…and I guess we can end it there. Some people are going to insist they KNOW there are no gods; some people are going to insist they KNOW there is a GOD. That says more about people who cannot acknowledge when they actually KNOW something and when they guess, theorize, or suppose it. And of course, mocking people willing to acknowledge when they do not know is part and parcel of that groups methodology.

This insistence that you KNOW “all things are explainable” is one of the reasons I gave you high marks in entertainment quality. Now that I think about it, I should have given you an A+ rather than just an A.

We’ll talk more in other threads, Art. Perhaps we can even talk about that supposed discussion of Pascal’s Wager that supposedly caused me to take my ball and leave! I doubt seriously if any discussion with you on Pascal’s Wager would ever cause me to leave…but I am willing to revisit what you suppose happened and continue that discussion.

...to suggest that when a choice is made…that it is certitude…that a person KNOWS…is dishonest. I am not saying Art is wrong here…I DO NOT KNOW IF EVERYTHING IS EXPLAINABLE OR UNEXPLAINABLE. I am merely asking him for an explanation of how he KNOWS. I honestly have not seen a reasonable explanation so far...everything he is saying seems to indicate he "believes" it or "theorizes" it. And that makes more sense.

Of course, no one is saying that they know something when in fact they are just pretending--that's your bullshit, and it's evidence of you being willing to tell people what they do or do not know. Who are you to determine is someone is pretending to know something, rather than that they do know it? You could only say that it you yourself know the answer--yet you beat your drum on the basis of not knowing.

I'm doing just fine with self-control--you're the one who seems to be losing, just as you did with FART. The "conversation" was in a thread a few months ago, in a thread in which you denied that you'd ever said that yours is a superior position. I found several posts in which you had done so, quoted them and linked them. Here you are just a few weeks or a few months later saying you can't remember. Maybe you need a medical evaluation.

I've already explained, more than once, that you are in no position to tell someone they are pretending to know what they do not in fact know, unless you know for a fact that they don't. To claim someone is pretending is a case of telling them what they do or do not know. As for calling you a liar, although it wouldn't bother me to call you that, i'll take a page from your playbook to point out that at no time in this conversation have i called you a liar. In truth, i'm beginning to think that either you never had a very good memory or a very long attention span, or that those faculties are failing you with age. That would excuse you of being a liar.