For those all who’ve regularly been reading this blog for the past couple years (all zero of you), you’ll know a few things about me. For those who haven’t been following along, well, let me fill you in. And then, once I get that background out of the way, we’re off to the races. (Here we go)
Axiom 1: The metrics by which an epistemic system is to be judged, are its explanatory power and its ability to make testable, repeatable predictions that reliably allow reality to be influenced in conformity with will.
I’d like to address the claim that an omnipotent, omniscient being, a being that wanted its will to be communicated with perfect clarity and fidelity to all people for all of time, decided to do so by having people grind up pigments in order to stain dead trees and/or animal hides with words.
My first video-cast debate.
I’m sorry the sound for my AC was so thoroughly awful. (Did kinda like that my lips blurred on film, that was kinda cool.) Here’s the text for my AC, and I’ll see if I can’t find the time to write up a transcript one of these days.
debate case and counter cases
Axiom 1: morality is founded on the effort to achieve a maximally fit balance between freedom of individual action and the objective metrics of impact in terms of the life and health of others.
Definition 1: salvation, as defined by (most) of global Christianity is predicated upon faith that Jesus was the Messiah and honest repentance of sin.
One of the arrows in the quiver of apologists is to claim that, just like empirical rationalism, their claims are not just evidence backed, they’re also subject to falsification and objective hypothesis-testing. In a way, they’re actually correct. Which is to say, they have a knack at putting together valid deductive proofs. Soundness, however, is another matter; falsifiable validity is nice, ‘n all, but a valid syllogism with unknown (or unknowable) soundness is epistemic null territory.
Contention: Uncertainty is King.
Our probabilistic reality makes the Null Hypothesis mandatory. Nor is pure reason the answer; logic is subject to Godel’s Incompleteness, and axioms can be falsified by empirical investigation. Many of our linguistic and logical concepts are meaningless. (e.g. “nothing”, “identity”, “non-contradiction”, “locality”, “dead people”, etc…) Faced with the limits on certainty, the burden of proof is upon any claimant. The Null Hypothesis has to be falsified in order to accept any claim as provisionally true, and the null hypothesis is always the negation of the claim. And even when the dominant view is falsified, that does not mean that you can use the Fallacy of Bifurcation to substitute an unproven claim. While this does not prove that unproven claims are false, the assumption must be that they are.