The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[Moonwood the Hare]

I'm taking the law of identity to be a universal law and as such non-demonstrable by definition. If you wish to reformulate it as a description of past and present experience then you are modifying it's meaning. But as we pursue this we will run once again into the old problem that I am never sure what you mean by demonstrable and you have never been able to clearly define the term. I will make my point again. If demonstrable only means to point to some facts consistent with then the law of identity is demonstrable but so is the existence of God.

By demonstrable I can point out to you the fact that each of these strings of symbols we call words have specific identity, meanings that are either what they are, or not. Given this law, you can decipher what I am saying, and so can others all assuming they understand this particular langauge and the symbols; indentity is thus demonstrated in a consistent and materialistic manner. As best as is possible, we have a demonstration of a claim or belief that words (or letters) strung together in specific ways, supports the assertion that there is a law of identity. That the letter A means the letter A and not the letter Z or the number 12 or... etc.

You missed my point and I feel I can only make it clearer by labouring it. What you have done is demonstrated that their are entities to which the law of identity applies. But the law if it is valid is supposed to be universal. That is to say if you intuit it as valid you intuit it as being true not of some or even of some class of entities but of all entities. We have had similar confusions over empirical science when you have said that a scientific law has been verified because you can point to instances when it has been fulfilled so let me take a parallel example from empirical science. You take the temperature of some boiling water and it comes out as 100 degrees centigrade; do you now have an intuition that all water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. If your intuitions work like mine then you do not get that intuition. However when I perform the thought experiment you describe above I do find it triggers such an intuition, 'of course all entities are identical to themselves!'. So my intuition confirms the law of identity and I feel no need to attempt to confirm that law by examining entities under a wide range of circumstances to see if it holds, I just know it is true. I am open to the possibility that your intuition does not function that way and if so I would need to find a different example. If I were dealing with a Buddhist mystic who had trained himself to transcend the law of identity there would be other truths that he grasped in this direct intuitive way such as the identity of form and emptiness. I don't think there are human beings who have no experience of grasping a truth by intuition but again I am open to that possibility; is that what you are claiming about yourself?

When you can show me the same regarding the assertions of Christianity, such as sin, gods, ressurrection and so on, you'll have something worth investigating. But as it stands, you don't have anything that even remotely comes up to this simple and basic criteria, and indeed, you will immediately have to submit to the law of identity by default in order to offer such demontration in the first place. The best you can offer is that the materialist, at some times, does have "Articles of faith" as well. Sure, ok. We just don't have them across the board for our core worldview.

Yes, there may be epistemological differences between us. I don't think it is possible to stand outside all possible ontologies and all possible epistemologies and select which one is right. You can choose to work in a particular way because it somehow feels right to you but I can't see any reason for thinking that is the only way or the only valid way or the superior way.

[Keep The Reason]

You can, of course, make this as wildly complicated as you (and those philosophers you'll no doubt rely on as saying they've broken this ground before you) want, but it "boils down" to this: If you want to assert water boils, you boil water. You demonstrate the assertion is grounded in something demonstrable. You certainly can choose to simply believe all water boils at some temperature, but your assertions and beliefs are either open to demonstration or not.

I could, if I wanted, try to boil water at every degree on the thermometer to support every degree's possible consequence of its ability to boil water, or I could presume that water boils at some degrees (depending upon altitude, if you want to get specific), and let it go at that. If, at any time, someone decides to challenge the assertion, its demonstrability is readily at hand.

Not so with your spiritual beliefs. Indeed, never so with those beliefs. You can never demonstrate heaven, hell, sin, god, Jesus, resurrection, etc.

Your intuition is meaningless to me in any material way. I have no access to what it is you "intuit" -- any more than you have access to what I might intuit. Hence, our intuitions may be a place for interesting discussion, but only our ability to demonstrate to one another what it means to have such and such an experience will have any value to us in exchanging any actual information. Some things, like, "I ate a peanut butter & jelly sandwich six weeks ago" need no assiduous evidence; they are too mundane and commonplace to be of any particular note. And in fact, much of the assertion is demonstrable. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches exist, humans eat, and "six weeks ago" is a frame of time we all mutually experience. So we give a pass to the banal and mundane and commonplace because there is nothing compelling about it to dispute. But god claims? These are sweeping assertions, with some very interesting possible consequences; while I no longer personally have any vested interest in their validity, in terms of this as an exercise, people should consider the implications of a god-ordered universe with some greater heft than they do that of lunch sandwich options.

Once again, you are shown to be asserting -- albeit in a convoluted, indirect and somewhat subversive way-- that you claim some specialized knowledge; there is some "thing" that you have, or get, or receive, that I do not. What that "thing" is -- you cannot demonstrate, so we are back to asking you how this specialized information makes itself known to you, and how do you know it's not a delusion or a hallucination, or simply just an "I Want It This Way" belief?

[humanguy]

I have a question for Moonwood. Moonwood, why are you a Christian?

[OzAnt]

I meant to reply to this. If I express an idea that might be unusual or controversial then I sometimes like to point out that it is a view I share with some major Christian thinkers even though people may not realise that was their view. I certainly did not notice that Calvin said this and Roy Clouser had to point it out to me and in fact practically rub my nose in it to make me see it. But I can see why that kind of reference might alienate people. The other thing is I don't like to pretend to be original when I am relying on other people's ideas. Drawing on other people's ideas does not seem to me to mean not having an opinion but as good old C. S. Lewis said what we have to ask about any idea is not, 'is it mine?' but rather, 'is it true?' Like it or not we are all influenced by other people's ideas so to me the point is not to hide that but to be aware of it.

Fair point, Moonwood. In fact, it's something I by and large appreciate because it makes it easier for me to research in more depth what you're saying quite often. I guess it's a bit of a case of “damned if you do – damned if you don't” because it can also appear like you're simply running with other people's ideas and beliefs instead of formulating your own and many of us ex-Christians resent that lemming kind of mentality. So, my apologies if I came off sounding like I thought you haven't invested time and effort into working out why you are a Christian.

There is a thing I love that when John Stuart Mill was little and he learned from his father about philosophy, he asked his dad why philosophers don't rule the world and his dad replied they do silly, they just do it 200 years after they die.

Hehehehe. I got a good laugh out of that... It kinda makes sense too I guess, 'cause, let's face it, no artist is ever really appreciated in their own lifetime from what I can tell.

Ant

[OzAnt]

Hi Moonwood,

I just want to revisit what you said, after reading about your further explanations to try and clarify your point, to say that I think the whole conversation got sidetracked...

The assumption here is that it is the extra-normal accompaniments of religious experience that make it valid but I don't accept this. Much of our experience is within a tradition and that includes most of what we know by direct experience.

It's alleged direct experience as best as I can tell. Moses may or may not have parted the Red Sea. There may or may not have been a serpent in the Garden of Eden. Heck, there may or may not have been a Garden of Eden. Christ may or may not have been the son of a god. Heck, he may or may not have existed. My point is: All you've got is tradition. You (singular) don't have direct experience. You've got hearsay.

For example I accept the law of identity as true because I experience it as true and am experiencing it as true now but that does not deny that this law has a human history and a number of different possible formulations.

You've also got a vested interest in it being true because if it isn't then God may well not be God

Ant

[Keep The Reason]

It kinda makes sense too I guess, 'cause, let's face it, no artist is ever really appreciated in their own lifetime from what I can tell.
Ant

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "really" but many, many artists are appreciated while they are still alive. Michelangelo, DaVinci, Ansel Adams, David Hockney, Monet, Georgia O'Keefe, Aaron Copland (the list of musicians is likely to be very long, from Beethoven to Bach to Beatles to... you name it).

I think the idea that artists are only appreciated after they're dead is more or less romanticized thanks to Van Gogh's infamous (I hesitate to claim they were "famous") struggles with obscurity.

[Moonwood the Hare]

It kinda makes sense too I guess, 'cause, let's face it, no artist is ever really appreciated in their own lifetime from what I can tell.
Ant

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "really" but many, many artists are appreciated while they are still alive. Michelangelo, DaVinci, Ansel Adams, David Hockney, Monet, Georgia O'Keefe, Aaron Copland (the list of musicians is likely to be very long, from Beethoven to Bach to Beatles to... you name it).

I think the idea that artists are only appreciated after they're dead is more or less romanticized thanks to Van Gogh's infamous (I hesitate to claim they were "famous") struggles with obscurity.

The point Mill's father was making (and that by the way is another indication of the peculiarities of fame that I can identify this man Mill who was himself a respected philosopher by his son) was not about appreciation so much as the assimilation of ideas. Powerful thinking takes centuries to assimilate. We have barely started on Wittgenstein for example. What puzzles me about the new atheists is that so many of their ideas seem to be old, already discredited ones. In the last twenty years there has been a kind of revolt against philosophy I suspect because it was becoming clear that the atheist philosophers who seemed to be making such huge strides in the early part of the twentieth century failed in the end to deliver the promised goods.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I have a question for Moonwood. Moonwood, why are you a Christian?

Because I have experienced God in Christ.

[Moonwood the Hare]

You can, of course, make this as wildly complicated as you (and those philosophers you'll no doubt rely on as saying they've broken this ground before you) want, but it "boils down" to this: If you want to assert water boils, you boil water. You demonstrate the assertion is grounded in something demonstrable. You certainly can choose to simply believe all water boils at some temperature, but your assertions and beliefs are either open to demonstration or not.

Exactly and a universal claim which is what scientific theories or the laws of logic make can never ever be demonstrated. I can't see why you don't understand this; it's not hard.

I could, if I wanted, try to boil water at every degree on the thermometer to support every degree's possible consequence of its ability to boil water, or I could presume that water boils at some degrees (depending upon altitude, if you want to get specific), and let it go at that. If, at any time, someone decides to challenge the assertion, its demonstrability is readily at hand.

It's demonstrable that some water boils, it's demonstrable that some objects are identical to themselves. A claim about all objects or all objects of a particular kind is not demonstrable. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Not so with your spiritual beliefs. Indeed, never so with those beliefs. You can never demonstrate heaven, hell, sin, god, Jesus, resurrection, etc.

Well these are all different kinds of claim with different degrees of demonstrability, and it is not clear what you would need demonstrating in each case. You seem to be claiming that every truth claim must be demonstrable in the same was a singular empirical claim is demonstrable. Can you demonstrate that this claim is true?

Your intuition is meaningless to me in any material way. I have no access to what it is you "intuit" -- any more than you have access to what I might intuit. Hence, our intuitions may be a place for interesting discussion, but only our ability to demonstrate to one another what it means to have such and such an experience will have any value to us in exchanging any actual information.

Yes, my intuition cannot be evidence for you but that does not mean it does not justify my belief.

Some things, like, "I ate a peanut butter & jelly sandwich six weeks ago" need no assiduous evidence; they are too mundane and commonplace to be of any particular note. And in fact, much of the assertion is demonstrable. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches exist, humans eat, and "six weeks ago" is a frame of time we all mutually experience. So we give a pass to the banal and mundane and commonplace because there is nothing compelling about it to dispute. But god claims? These are sweeping assertions, with some very interesting possible consequences; while I no longer personally have any vested interest in their validity, in terms of this as an exercise, people should consider the implications of a god-ordered universe with some greater heft than they do that of lunch sandwich options.

So even though many many people do believe they experience God these cannot be regarded as commonplace because they have consequences. We can have our personal dead certainties as long as they are more dead than they are certain.

Once again, you are shown to be asserting -- albeit in a convoluted, indirect and somewhat subversive way-- that you claim some specialized knowledge; there is some "thing" that you have, or get, or receive, that I do not. What that "thing" is -- you cannot demonstrate, so we are back to asking you how this specialized information makes itself known to you, and how do you know it's not a delusion or a hallucination, or simply just an "I Want It This Way" belief?

I don't think there is any way of knowing for certain that one is not delusional or hallucinating. To detect those things in other people we tend to make complex comparisons that the person undergoing the hallucination or delusion usually cannot make. The man today who thinks he is Napoleon knows this by reflecting on his experience of himself. Napoleon knew the same thing by using the same method. It is not the method that is wrong but somehow that method which normally works misfires for some people. Now the method of knowing religious truths through personal experience is one that can also misfire but there is no way of stepping outside all the ontological possibilities in order to know in which instances it is misfiring. Even a materialist has to explain why not everyone is a materialist.

[Keep The Reason]

Powerful thinking takes centuries to assimilate. We have barely started on Wittgenstein for example. What puzzles me about the new atheists is that so many of their ideas seem to be old, already discredited ones. In the last twenty years there has been a kind of revolt against philosophy I suspect because it was becoming clear that the atheist philosophers who seemed to be making such huge strides in the early part of the twentieth century failed in the end to deliver the promised goods.

Discredited? How? Because there may be philosophical flaws? What if there's no way around that (and there isn't-- ultimately, we can't prove we're not all participants in someone's lab experiment, or in someone's dream, or in The Matrix, or brains in a vat, etc), so that means that every superstition has equal validity? given the historical records for the vast majority of rleigious beliefs, all religious models extant today will eventually be dust, not unlike those of Isis, Odin, Zeus, Kukulkan, and Quetzatcoatl. Judiasm shrinks continually, with a large part of it now being self-defined as "cultural Jewishness" rather than rleigious Jewishness. Christianity's history is rife with split upon split upon split, ending presently criss-crossing into weird paradigms like Mormonism (where we each get our own planet to lord it over!).

On the other hand, rejection of beliefs will be around for all of humanity's tenure of existence since one cannot hold differing beliefs concurrently -- so even a theist is some form of atheist when it comes to a competiting belief system.

So...

I reject your claim you "experience god in Christ"-- Instead, I assert you experience utterly nothing other than wish fulfillment, fantasy, and maybe delusion.

Now what are you going to do? You can't prove me wrong, all philosophical routes are cut off from you (since they're all discredited), and all you have is the same thing we say you start off with: An empty assertion that is utterly meaningless to anyone but you-- plus you may simply be deranged.

That's why your entire approach is nihilistic in consequence. All you have is experience, and utterly nothing else. I at least have experience and demonstrability towards materialistic claims. Sure, maybe it's all an absurd farce but if it's that for me, it's that for you. It's the theistic side that opens themselves up to all sorts of wild assertions that need no support in order that it could be concluded "Well, it may be true."

Materialists may in fact be completely at the mercy of such a chasm, but since there's nbo compelling reaosn to think it's the case, it's dismissed (acknowledged as possible, but then dismissed as impractical asnd unlikely). You don't have that luxury since you adopt a very impractical and most likely imporobabler core worldview that you can only homina-homina-homiona your way through.

If that's what you want, go for it (don't enforce it on me of course). But does this mean your empty assertions have the same gravitas as my demonstrable ones do? Nope. They don't and they never will. If they did, I'd be encouraged to accept them.

Once again, we are illustrating why continued debate with people who do as you do is a waste of time; better spent doing other things. Sure, I can learn from you, no doubt about it, but our debate on theism is a black hole that will be unresolvable. I will never accept your criteria, which I think beggars belief and is Crisco-greased slide into nonsense and absurdity, and you will always think my criteria is as hobbled as is your own is (and it may be, I admit, but I see no compelling reason to think that assertion is any more true than any of your other ultimately empty assertions are true either).

It's a dead end, Moonwood. Unless something demonstrable should comes this way.

[humanguy]

What puzzles me about the new atheists is that so many of their ideas seem to be old, already discredited ones.

"New atheists" aside, what are these old, already discredited ideas you speak of? Discredited how, and by whom?

[Moonwood the Hare]

What puzzles me about the new atheists is that so many of their ideas seem to be old, already discredited ones.

"New atheists" aside, what are these old, already discredited ideas you speak of? Discredited how, and by whom?

Well, I certainly didn't suggest as Keep the Reason implies in the rant above that all philosophical ideas have been discredited but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century there was a strong hope among atheistic thinkers that religious claims could be discredited by showing they were based on invalid ways of knowing.

Very important in this were a group called the Vienna Circle (also known as the logical positivists) who thought all valid truth claims could be verified either by logical analysis or by the scientific method and that religious claims would not stand up to this kind of vigorous testing. In fact the claim they made was a very strong one that religious claims were literally meaningless. What happened then was that someone pointed out that the claim that all valid truth claims could be verified either by logical analysis or by the scientific method could not itself be verified using either of these methods. All the arguments I hear from Keep the Reason sound very similar to those of the Vienna Circle and although I don't want to dismiss the idea that he has done some original thinking and overcome these problems but I see no evidence for this so far

Whereas the logical positivists put their emphasis on the primacy of what we can know through our senses there were others who put a strong emphasis on the importance of logic. Their project was to try to show that non-empirical truths were all of one kind that is there were not lots of different kinds of mental entities and laws that had to be accounted for but a few very simple self evident laws from which all mathematical truths could be derived. In the parlance of a later age they were after a theory of everything that was basically logical in nature because having something as complex as mathematics just existing all by itself looked a bit suspicious. This approach came a complete cropper in 1931 when Gödel showed that the idea of mathematics being derived from pure logic was unworkable. Gödel's own answer to this was to reintroduce the idea of numbers existing in a distinct realm as something self existent and this idea has been shared by a number of important modern thinkers but it cuts against any simple version of materialism as firmly as it cuts against the idea of everything being reducible to simple logical laws.

Then there are the philosophers of science - Popper who began by opposing the logical positivists and then his critics Lakatos and Feyerabend and Kuhn. These have all questioned the idea of science as some kind of universal method which can provide a model for true knowing.

What all this means is that whatever the truth is it is very unlikely that someone can now start claiming they have the right way of knowing and dismissing other views because their proponents have the wrong one.

[Keep The Reason]

Exactly and a universal claim which is what scientific theories or the laws of logic make can never ever be demonstrated. I can't see why you don't understand this; it's not hard.

The idea that either scientific theories or laws of logic can't be demonstrated is untrue. I am demonstrating the laws of logic by writing this post, and when you read and reply to it, you will demonstrate back to me those rules are in place for us both. And so on for everyone else who reads it whether or not they reply. That pretty much covers "demonstration". Now, proving the laws of logic are true requires me to adopt the laws of logic to do also, and there are philosophical rebuttals to that, but in any practical sense we're both condemned by reality to either accept they are, or to adopt a position that everything is absurd or a solipsism, or a delusion.

If this latter is the case, then you as a theist are welcome to it; I consider it nihilistic at its core (though you mask it with god). And it also has the added perquisite of putting that "delusion vs reality" question right back on your shoulders. If you want to force the argument that the LoL are not demonstrably in place-- then how does anyone know their religious beliefs are not as lunatic as the claims that one is Napoleon?

It's demonstrable that some water boils, it's demonstrable that some objects are identical to themselves. A claim about all objects or all objects of a particular kind is not demonstrable. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

All water is boilable (if that's a word). Not that "some water boils" (that's a given state claim, not a properties claim-- IOW, an inherent property of water is that given the right temperature, it MUST boil if it is indeed water. That doesn't mean all water is boiling all of the time is valid).

I can demonstrate to you enough empirical data that supports my assertion that "all water will boil under the right circumstance". I don't have to demonstrate that water everywhere in the universe is boiling, as long as we accept the principle that all water will boil given certain circumstances. Plus, according to your criteria, it boomerangs right back at you: Demonstrate to me any kind of water that does NOT having "ability to boil" as part of its properties. In fact, show me a SINGLE INSTANCE of water that would not be boilable under such circumstances. You cannot do it (and still call it water).

So you can play this out if you want, but it's just philosophical chin music. It has no actual practical application.

Well these are all different kinds of claim with different degrees of demonstrability, and it is not clear what you would need demonstrating in each case. You seem to be claiming that every truth claim must be demonstrable in the same was a singular empirical claim is demonstrable. Can you demonstrate that this claim is true?

Demonstrate any claims of sin, spirituality, god, heaven, hell, resurrection. Don't merely assert it -- demonstrate it so I can walk away and say, "Well, like the property of water is it boils, the properties of <insert here> is <insert here>."

You're being waaaay to easy on yourself. It's not like theistic claims have "different degrees of demonstrability". Theistic claims like god, heaven, hell, sin, resurrection -- have NO degree of demonstrability. None. Zero. Naught. Zed. Not there. Un-extant. Non-existent. Zilch.

Yes, my intuition cannot be evidence for you but that does not mean it does not justify my belief.

Once again then you are being asked-- how is your intuition distinguished from wish-fulfillment, desire, or delusion? You certainly can ask the same of me-- the moment I assert to you a scenario that is non-demonstrable in any way, shape or form. Offhand, I can't think of one that would leave you stumped. I can demonstrate for you that I love people by having them contact you about how I treat them and they can confirm for you that what you and I call "love" -- a feeling that is translated into actions and behaviors towards things and people -- is supported. I can even demonstrate a degree of love for a mute thing, by demonstrating how I might care for it, and cherish it, and so on.

None of this is available to you or any theist.

So even though many many people do believe they experience God these cannot be regarded as commonplace because they have consequences. We can have our personal dead certainties as long as they are more dead than they are certain.

No, they are commonplace but so what? Experiences are intangibles. We already accept that theists have intangibles they like to claim exist. Fine. But your intangibles don't stack up to my tangibles. A simple peanut butter sandwich is far more valid a thing that exists than is 7 billion people claiming sin exists. If you doubt this, try demonstrating one versus the other.

I don't think there is any way of knowing for certain that one is not delusional or hallucinating. To detect those things in other people we tend to make complex comparisons that the person undergoing the hallucination or delusion usually cannot make. The man today who thinks he is Napoleon knows this by reflecting on his experience of himself. Napoleon knew the same thing by using the same method. It is not the method that is wrong but somehow that method which normally works misfires for some people. Now the method of knowing religious truths through personal experience is one that can also misfire but there is no way of stepping outside all the ontological possibilities in order to know in which instances it is misfiring. Even a materialist has to explain why not everyone is a materialist.

Everyone is a materialist... until it comes to religions and what the religious doctrines claim, but only then it's in assertion that people are "not materialist". No one even understands any religion or religious claim without a thorough grounding in being a materialist. Because you need your brain to understand what "religion" even is. You get this information via the material realm using communication-- all of it material as well. Sound waves (hearing the gospel), light waves (reading the gospel), emotional responses (feeling the gospel is true) -- all of it is grounded in materialism. Anyone who is not by default a materialist is not alive and has no opinion that we can detect.

If you're not a materialist, then stop relying on the material to communicate and instead rely on the spiritual. In fact, give up food, air, water, and your body. Everything about you is materialist in nature; even your mind and emotions -- ostensibly intangible states of being -- vanishes as best we can tell if we shut down your materialist brain.

[Keep The Reason]

Well, I certainly didn't suggest as Keep the Reason implies in the rant above that all philosophical ideas have been discredited but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century there was a strong hope among atheistic thinkers that religious claims could be discredited by showing they were based on invalid ways of knowing.

Very important in this were a group called the Vienna Circle (also known as the logical positivists) who thought all valid truth claims could be verified either by logical analysis or by the scientific method and that religious claims would not stand up to this kind of vigorous testing. In fact the claim they made was a very strong one that religious claims were literally meaningless. What happened then was that someone pointed out that the claim that all valid truth claims could be verified either by logical analysis or by the scientific method could not itself be verified using either of these methods. All the arguments I hear from Keep the Reason sound very similar to those of the Vienna Circle and although I don't want to dismiss the idea that he has done some original thinking and overcome these problems but I see no evidence for this so far

Nope, I recognize the flaw, but it's nihilistic. If the way of knowing open to humans is not really knowing-- i.e., by assertion, and evidence/demonstration to support one's assertion, then the entire enterprise of existence might be equally absurd. Your theism is just as outlandish as my atheism. So now you have the cascading slippery slope of this crashing into everything. How do we know racism is bad? we don't. Maybe it's good but we don't know it. Or Nazism, or whatever ism you want to name.

While all of this is a fun mind exercises, it has no real practical application -- in short, the "problem" is unresolvable to the point where it isn't much of a problem. We have reality in front of us. Now, what we choose to do is up to us. We can pretend that all assertions have equal validity because we can't prove the laws of logic by assuming the laws of logic, or we can agree that the laws of logic are to be assumed as a priori and go from there. If you adopt the first option -- then all bets on "validity" go out the window. Osama bin laden has every right to his "valid" worldview to fly airplanes into buildings for the very same reason you have to believe Jesus Christ popped up three days after he was stone cold dead, and that I do to think it's all mythology.

Indeed, this is very much the way the world operates until your worldview explodes and you're stuck on the 83rd floor of a building that's about to collapse into rubble. suddenly, the materialist properties of fire and gravity take on a whole new meaning and you can shove your various "ways of knowing" up where the sun don't shine. Because you're now going to die, quite horribly, and arguments that the asshole who put you in this fatal predicament doesn't have a "valid worldview" you care to promote.

In short, fuck the philosophers; we have a real world to live in and deal with.

And in that real world, demonstration supports assertion. If I care to assert Osama bin Laden is a heartless monster, I'll do it by letting his own acts stand as demonstration. I don't need to get into a debate if "his way of knowing is valid" because I already know it isn't because he's causing global chaos and harm to countless innocent people. And since you and I are part of "countless innocent people" we have the right to be protected from assholes who have decided they can believe whatever they want because "there is no real way to know what's twue".

That's baby-talk and baby-thinking; it's not the way the world actually functions, and until your side can offer something a little more tangible than "because", you shouldn't be at the steering wheel.

What all this means is that whatever the truth is it is very unlikely that someone can now start claiming they have the right way of knowing and dismissing other views because their proponents have the wrong one.

They aren't dismissed-- they were evaluated and then put aside as impossible, and not supported by any demonstrable evidence at all.

If you have some demonstrable evidence-- bring it on. But you won't do it because you can't. So now we're back to square one with theism once again.

[humanguy]

I have a question for Moonwood. Moonwood, why are you a Christian?

Because I have experienced God in Christ.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means. Could you explain, please.