As I said, its Baldee's gem, not mine. Basically its like saying the means to examine the claims of a particular physicist is to disallow any assessment of physics. God knows what one would be basing such an assessment on. Their shoelaces maybe? As I said, its totally batshit and an invitation to finish the discussion right there.
No it isn't. I'm talking about your incoherent blather. That's not what's happening here. The basic premise of this thread seems to be that anybody on this thread can claim to be God, anybody can whisper in your ear claiming to be God, anybody can claim that the "real" God has been whispering in their ear, etc. Those are all claims. They are all examined in the same way. Nobody can claim "special knowledge" from the "real" God because that too is just another claim. The only real knowledge is what can be backed up by objective evidence, evidence that can be agreed on by everybody.
You are taking it up with the wrong person. It is. You can read Baldee's own words if you like. Baldee has different ideas.
That's your position. You are the one refusing to provide argument from evidence, employ knowledge, etc. Instead, you pivot to disparagements - using this thread, as you have all others in this matter, as a pretext for personal disparagement of science, scientific research, scientific worldviews, and reasoning from evidence in general. Capracus is your God, or you have some reasoning from evidence to justify your denial and rejection, or your denial and rejection is without reason and evidence.
Thats the opposite of my position. If you had bothered to read anything, you would see the basis of my argument is that there is an inextricable connection between "things" and "qualities". That is what primpted Baldee to came forth with this zany idea to oppose looking at "claims of knowledge" as bearing a connection to "knowledge".
Not in your posting here. You are refusing to provide argument from evidence, refusing to discuss knowledge, etc. Gish Galloping off into various irrelevancies decorated with the characteristic weird Scrabble verbiage aimed at innuendo we get from oA theists on science forums provides neither argument nor evidence. You have rejected and denied your God here - Capracus. Do you have an argument from evidence for doing that?
I've made no such prohibition. I have said that there is a difference between knowing God and knowing whether a claim about God is false based on the claim being made. If person A tries to dismiss a claim by person B that B is God, simply because B is not doing something A thinks God is capable of, one doesn't need to "know God" to be able to call A's dismissal of person B's claim as fallacious. I.e. The claim itself is sufficient to conclude that, without knowledge of God. It really isn't difficult. That you've read far more into it than is actually there, so as to grind a conversation to a halt, and to avoid acknowledgement of the fallacy you committed, well, that's your cross to bear, I guess. Your continued obfuscation and evasion is noted.
And for the love of God/Capracus/whoever, will you all please spell my name correctly!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yet you spell out the prohibition again ... . There is nothing "simple" about whimsically discarding "knowledge". It is the very tool anyone uses to intelligently discriminate amongst any "claims of knowledge". Actually it is even the same tool people use to unintelligently discriminate amongst claims of knowledge. Your proposal is so riduculous that it is only effective on a sub-moronic level ... yet here you are, trying to land accusations of evasion and obfuscation by those who accurately identify your antics. . By the same token, one could disable medical science to launch the claim that eating a dozen iced donuts a day is an effective cancer cure. Or by disabling political journalism, one could authoratatively claim that an Anarctic penguin is the new president of the United States. Anyone can now say anything about anything, because by disabling knowledge, anything anyone says is now just as valid as anything anyone else might say. Swish. . If you think you can assert the in/validity of a claim of knowledge by totally bypassing knowledge, you are establishing a very low bar for discussion. How low? Like maybe the level of loungeroom banter amongst a group of people on acid. Try that stunt in any other forum on any subject and bear witness to others as they similarly "obfuscate and evade" in the presence of your totally swishworthy logic.
Well Baldee did bring up a very sub-moronic point to argue on. The level of stupid that went into it was quite exceptional, Driving an exclusive divide between "knowledge" and "claims of knowledge" is on par with finding a corner to sit in within a circular room.
No, I really don't. Who says I am disregarding "knowledge"? Where on earth have you gotten that nugget from??? I am making the distinction between "know God" and knowing sufficient about a claim to be able to dismiss it or not. You tried, lest you forget, to dismiss Capracus' claim that he was God on the basis that he was not doing something you think God could do. One does not need to "know God" to know whether or not your dismissal is fallacious. One merely needs to know your concept of God would be capable of doing the thing Capracus is actually doing. That quite possibly has nothing to do with "knowing God". Your concept could be, as far as you are concerned, "knowledge" but for me it is not. Thus your dismissal can be shown to be fallacious, without the need to "know God". It's not that difficult, yet you choose to wilfully obfuscate. The rest of your post, and the past few pages of your obfuscation, clearly stem from your misunderstanding of what was said. While still being irrelevant to the point at hand, I do suggest you go back and revisit. And all the while your initial dismissal remains fallacious. Go figure.
They are both tasks for the sub-moronic. Suppose person B tells person A to eat twelve iced donuts a day to cure cancer. If person A tries to dismiss this claim by person B that iced donuts cure cancer, simply because iced donuts are not something A thinks can cure cancer, one doesn't need to "know the medical treatment of cancer" to be able to call A's dismissal of person B's claim as fallacious. (BTW this is a copy/paste of Baldeee's post with donuts and medicine replacing their equivalent for God) If that seems to be a pitiful attempt at logic, we are both in agreement.
Is your continuing inability to spell my name correctly, despite quite clearly being asked not to, a deliberate insult or just another oversight on your part?
No, I agree with the logic. A's dismissal is based only on his own opinion, therefore it is fallacious. It doesn't matter whether B's claim is right or wrong; A's dismissal is still wrong.
Why is A in a position not to have access to standard easily available elementary medical ideas about cancer treatment? At what point was discussion reduced to a "battle of opinions" with zero access to knowledge? And if one, for whatevrr reason, insisted on reducing discussion to such a sub-moronic level, how on earth could one hope to establish one opinion as capable of invalidating another?
