Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
I have already provided you a definition of what is empirical.
- EMPIRICAL:
: originating in or based on observation or experience.
-empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
-an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
-empirical laws
4: of or relating to empiricism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
- Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
wiki
If you do not agree with the above, what is your definition, else we can deliberate on others.
Empirically possible means whatever that is unknown that can be defined as empirical.
Well that does not make any sense to me, considering what you have written above about how you define the word 'empirical'.
If 'empirical' is something/information, which originated, was based, or relied ON or FROM observation or experience, then absolutely any thing could be 'empirical', with enough time. Therefore, 'empirically possible' would just mean absolutely any thing/information that could be POSSIBLY gained ON or FROM 'observation' or 'experience'.
'you', "veritas aequitas", obviously do NOT know what things/information could be gained or verified ON or FROM what WILL BE observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE. Therefore, you have NO way of knowing what can be defined as 'empirical' from what is 'unknown' to 'you' now.
OBVIOUSLY 'you' have NO way of knowing what things/information will be obtained from what is observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE.
Again you miss the point.
Empirical = grounded on observation + experience.
It is not the case of not knowing what can be defined as 'empirical'.
Point is whatever is unknown but imputed with empirical elements, then is possible to know them empirically upon the production of the evidences.
Talk about MISSING THE point or MARK.
IF it is UNKNOWN, then HOW do you KNOW what to 'impute' with it.
How can you logically and reasonably impute the UNKNOWN with empirical elements, or any thing?
'empirical' IS what is grounded on observation and experience. So, if some thing is UNKNOWN, then you obviously have NOT YET observed NOR experience it, and therefore you have NO comprehension of what it is comprised of. To 'impute' the UNKNOWN with absolutely ANY thing is absurd and ridiculous beyond any sensible comprehension.
By definition, the 'unknown' IS UNKNOWN, obviously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe issue is, if a thing is unknown, the question is whether it is empirically possible or not?
That is a question but if it is an issue or not, is another matter. But, if a thing is unknown to 'you' now, then how would you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future, forever more?
I can speculate dogs exist in a planet 100 million light years away because all the variables here are empirical elements.
Just because you can 'speculate' does in NO way mean that you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future.
ALL adult human beings can speculate on things. In fact, ALL adult human beings most likely do speculate on, many, things. But, sadly, those human beings usually speculate on things, or ASSUME things, based solely upon their own previous experiences. Worse still adult human beings make speculations based from their OWN BELIEFS, of which some of them are Truly distorted, from 'reality'.
Speculating on dogs existing on another planet is just that; a speculation, which has NO bearing at all on what is possible or not.
You miss the point again or merely lack the intelligence in this case.
In your whole life have you ever considered that people have different views than you, without ever seeing those as having some sort of mental illness or disability?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am"Speculating on dogs existing on another planet" is empirically possible because all the elements therein are empirical.
So the speculation can be confirmed when dogs are brought back from another planet.
You really are beyond a joke.
Speculating God exists ANY WHERE is, to use the absolutely misused words, 'empirically possible' because all the elements therein are, again to use a completely wrongly misused word, 'empirical'.
So the speculation can be confirmed when God is observed or experienced for what God REALLY IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amIt is the same with scientists speculating there is water in the planet Mars which is a possibility but subject to evidence and confirmation.
Yes and I have also made my point clear on the absolutely unnecessary and STUPID thing of ASSUMING and THEORIZING, or what some might call SPECULATING.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amHowever if scientists were to speculate there are
square-circle,
perfect circles or
God on the planet Mars, the speculation is a non-starter or moot because the elements mentioned are non-empirical.
HOW do you KNOW that these things are; non-empirical?
Have you observed or experience ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing in the WHOLE Universe?
If yes, then really?
If no, then you do NOT yet KNOW what actually exists and what does NOT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amBut if I were to speculate a square-circle exists anywhere, it is not empirically possible at all, i.e. being a contradiction. This is a non-starter for any empirical possibility.
How do you KNOW that a square-circle exists anywhere?
The Universe is a little bit bigger than where most human beings have traversed.
Have you traveled EVERY where? Do you KNOW square-circles do NOT exist EVERY where.
Is it possible that there is a planet SOME where, where dogs exist who have the intelligence of the human animal, but are far more advance and have some things called 'square-circles'?
If it is possible for the dog animal to exist on a planet 100 million light years away from that planet where the human animal exists, then what I said above could also be possible, correct?
A
square-circle is merely a thought, a contradiction and thus non-empirical, i.e. cannot be observed and experienced.
I do NOT think I have ever met some one as CLOSED as you are.
You appear to not even have the ability to even to just starting to consider any thing other than what you already BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe IDEA of God is not empirically possible because it is merely a thought arising from a transcendental illusion.
And the evidence that God is only an illusion is based on 'what', besides your BELIEFS, exactly?
You keep saying things as though you have proven some thing, but you NEVER actually prove any thing.
If human beings are NEVER perfect, as you say they are, then 'you', being a human being, could be absolutely WRONG about 'God is not empirically possible', correct?
Or, is it only "other" human beings who are NOT perfect, but 'you' ARE perfect, and that that is HOW you KNOW, 100% for sure, that what you say you have "proved" IS True, Right, and Correct?
Why is, what is conditioned upon 'you', "veritas aequitas", and your experiences meant to be PERFECTLY True, but what is conditioned by other human experiences can not be perfect?
That God is an illusion is not based solely on my belief but grounded on giant shoulders of the greatest philosophers of all times.
Another PRIME EXAMPLE of coincidence here once again. When other people say things that one BELIEVES is true, then they are supposedly the "greatest philosophers of all times".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amKant had proven God is an transcendental illusion;
LOL
LOL
LOL
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am- 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
3. God is a transcendental illusion.
LOL
LOL
LOL
This about one of the most idiotic and ridiculous attempts at an argument that I have observed and experienced.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amYou will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.
Here is a clue;
I have ALREADY countered. You will need to read the WHOLE of my writings to SEE and UNDERSTAND this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am- ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397
The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
I don't think you have sufficient philosophical intelligence to understand the above, but the point is in there. I challenge you to read the whole of the CPR to give a counter.[]
I challenge to read the whole of mine or any one "else's writings to give your counter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amPoint is while there are empirical evidence of dogs, thus an empirical element, there are no empirical grounding for the thought of God.
Some one could just now say; What planet do you live on?
And, some would get it and some would not. But each to their own.
Not to each their own in this case. I have stated many times, what count are justified argument.
Of which you are yet to provide one that I have seen so far.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
That is, AFTER the observation or experience then this it true.
By the way the same applies to the woman of that animal species also.
'you', human beings, can be observed AND experienced.
Now, what about "other" Spiritual Beings? Have you EVER observed or experienced any "other" Spiritual Being, or ONLY the 'empirical man being'?
Re 'spiritual being' you have to define precisely what you mean by that.
Whether whatever being or things is claimed to be real, they must be proven empirically via science at the least.
This has ALREADY BEEN proven.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
Well, I for one, have CERTAINLY NEVER observed NOR experienced a 'perfect man' nor even a 'perfect woman'. But that is NO way means that, FOREVER MORE, a 'perfect man or perfect woman' could never be a possibility.
Even IF a 'perfect man, or woman' is only an ideal, OBVIOUSLY ideals CAN and DO come to be a reality. Therefore, ALL ideals COULD be a POSSIBILITY, some time in the future, obviously.
By definition an absolute perfect man or any ideal is an impossibility to be empirically real.
This is because whatever is 'perfect' is always conditional to humans setting the criteria, thus never absolute.
Thus the absolute perfect man is an impossibility.
Of which you are LIVING PROOF.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
When this is written, are you joking?
If no, then my answer is NO I can not prove a 'perfect man, nor a perfect woman' exists. However, and if we want to delve deeper into philosophy, then ALL female bodies, like ALL male bodies are PERFECT, exactly how they ARE.
Your intelligence is going south.
Perfect female body like what? 36-24-36?
Whatever is termed 'perfect' the criteria is set by humans, thus cannot be absolutely perfect.
According to your logic any "argument" and any BELIEF is set by humans, thus can not be absolutely perfect, therefore, what you INSIST MUST actually be IMPERFECT.
Also, this is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of some one making us some ASSUMPTION, and then jumping straight to a CONCLUSION, based solely off of that ASSUMPTION, and then BELIEVING that the ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION are absolutely TRUE. When the actual Truth IS the ASSUMPTION was ABSOLUTELY WRONG from the outset. Therefore, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing you said was ABSOLUTELY WRONG as well.
I wonder how many times I have to tell 'people', like 'you', "veritas aequitas", If you STOP assuming and believing things, then you will STOP being SO CLEARLY WRONG, so OFTEN, and then the actual Truth of things can be CLEARLY recognized and SEEN.