Comments

  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    So if it's logically possible, and logical possibility is sufficient to justify a stance, then logical possibility is sufficient to justify both P and not-P, right? If not, why not?

    (P and not-P in this case being "We do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist," and "We don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist." )     — Terrapin Station

    You're twisting my words. I wasn't generalising about logical possibility. I made a specific point. You haven't said anything to refute my specific point.

    If you cannot logically rule out the possibility of the actual existence of god, unspecified, then you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

    Do understand why that is?
  • There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
    What's your definition of "fact?" — YuZhonglu

    I already told you what a fact is, and I've given examples. I don't really care if you want to use the word differently. It seems that other respondents don't care much either.
  • There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
    1. I submitted a comment above. — YuZhonglu

    That's a tacit acknowledgment of a fact. It's all I need for my argument to work. Nothing else you say even matters.
  • There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
    What argument? Give me your definition of "fact" and we can talk about it. — YuZhonglu

    My reductio ad absurdum. It's hard to miss.

    A fact is something that's the case. It corresponds to a true statement. It's a fact that you submitted the comment I quoted above. The statement, "You submitted the comment I quoted above", is true.

    Do you have a serious argument against this, or just trivial semantics?
  • There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
    Is this just trivial semantics, or does anyone have a serious refutation of my argument?
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Are you saying that it's not logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist? — Terrapin Station

    No, I'm not saying that. It is logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist. But that doesn't refute my argument, so why are you focusing on that?
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Then logical possibility is sufficient to justify the stance that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist. — Terrapin Station

    No it isn't, and saying that makes no sense. If you cannot logically rule out the possibility of the actual existence of god, unspecified, then you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

    In other words, logical possibility would have to be sufficient to justify contradictory claims. — Terrapin Station

    What?
  • There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
    Yes, you have a very strongly held opinion that you're replying to what I submitted. — YuZhonglu

    No, you need to actually attempt to refute my argument, not just repeat your assertion.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    We can say that it's possible that a god exists and is undetectable. It's also possible that no god exists and that any existent god would be detectable. Possibility isn't enough then, is it? — Terrapin Station

    Logical possibility is sufficient to justify the stance that we don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist. That was his point. To argue against that, you'd have to argue that it is logically impossible for there to be an undetectable god. But that argument won't work because it is logically possible for there to be an undetectable god.
  • There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
    No one asked what the definitions of the two classes were. The claim is that one class is empty. — Isaac

    Except that it isn't. If it wasn't a fact that you submitted that comment, then it would be impossible for me to reply to it. But I'm replying to it now, so it's a fact that you submitted it.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Then why did you bring it up when I was talking about evidence? — Terrapin Station

    His point was that it's possible that a god exists, and that, given that we can conceive of an undetectable god, we don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

    Your point about evidence doesn't work as an attempted refutation of his point.

    What was the point in you making that point about evidence? That is only of logical relevance to a specified god, and he didn't specify. You did. But why?
  • "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion
    Where is Jake's argument for the authority of reason which he relies upon for his criticism? I must have missed it.
  • Write a review of this forum
    I give it an apricot. I like apricots.











































    Reveal
    Apricot.
  • sunknight
    Noted.
  • Morality
    In closing, I’ll give you two of four. — Mww

    Generous.
  • "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion
    I’m not sure. If anyone has, and Jake can show the error in this reasoning, and also show a refusal of this person or persons to accept their error and adopt the corrected reasoning, then Jake will have made his case for ideology, in my opinion.

    I have little hope that he’ll be successful.     — praxis

    I think that you, me, and Isaac are of one mind on that.
  • "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion
    ↪praxis
    Has anyone actually made that claim, though? That reason is useful for "everything"? Or that that logic and reason have "infinite ability"? Or are able to meaningfully analyse "anything in all of reality"?

    Or did he pluck it out of thin air?
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    S...respectfully as possible...I think it is best we not engage in any further discussions. — Frank Apisa

    You're free to do what you want, as am I. Freedom of expression. That you might have chosen to ignore me doesn't mean that I will stop commenting on your posts.
  • How do/should we DO philosophy?
    I wrote this in another thread, but it occurs to me that it might be a worthwhile topic for discussion here. Are there guidelines - or something similar - that have been discussed and described already? I'm not asking for your opinions here, useful and interesting though I'm sure they are, I'm wondering if there is an equivalent to all the dictionaries that define "philosophy", that describes how philosophical inquiry is, or should be, carried out?

    Or is it, as I suspect, that this has never been written down? Have philosophers just assumed that they and their colleagues instinctively know how to go about philosophical inquiry?     — Pattern-chaser

    Much has been said on this by philosophers themselves. Hume with his "consign it to the flames". Wittgenstein with his "whereof we cannot speak".
  • Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways
    My guess is that Devans will offer some variation on:

    Go back to a different spot on the circle...and see where it leads.     — Frank Apisa

    Yes. I wonder where that could lead to? Let's go full circle again to find out. And then once we've done that, let's do it again. And again. And again.

    Or not.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Then get "the world" to tell me what can and cannot exist. — Frank Apisa

    We can in some cases determine with logic what can and cannot exist. That which the existence of which would imply a contradiction cannot exist. So that rules out a number of gods from the enquiry.
  • Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways
    For fuck's sake. You think there have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented.

    Other people think their counter arguments are substantive and valid.

    Now what?     — Isaac

    It's a proof by repeated assertion. He's not the only one who does this. We've also seen it with "thought/belief" and with "just a guess".
  • Morality
    Why do you think that you're so attracted to going with the crowd? That's a disposition I run into frequently--it seems to be the whole nut of getting on board with both objectivism and "intersubjectivism" on anything--a disposition to consider something right because it's common, but I don't really understand what the attraction is. I'm always instead reminded of the "if everyone were jumping off of a bridge" thing. — Terrapin Station

    Me too. It would be quite alarming if he actually thought that way, but he doesn't. He is inconsistent. He only goes with the crowd when the crowd happen to agree with his own judgement. He wouldn't actually jump off a bridge, and that is sufficient to refute his argument.

    He can't seem to bring himself into accepting that his argument has been refuted.
  • "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion
    You still are not challenging your chosen authority, but are instead focusing exclusively on defending it's superiority, just as all ideologists do. — Jake

    That is what you are doing.
  • Why do some members leave while others stay?
    Thirdly, I hear a lot about this 'consistent and coherent'. These seem to me to be pretty low targets. I'd have thought it the most basic requirement before even posting that you believe your argument to be consistent and coherent. — Isaac

    Yes, I'm with you on that one, and I've raised that objection before. Soundness is pretty important. Ignoring criticism just because it isn't an internal criticism is pretty bad form.

    In addition, as far as I recall, you and I have only engaged in the thread on morality. A thread which opened with a paraphrasing of the relativist position. Are you claiming that your responses to that have been to try and understand the relativist position from their own presuppositions, because I'm finding it extremely difficult to parse your comments in that light. — Isaac

    Yes, I agree with you on that point also. We, the actual moral relativists, are still having to correct misunderstandings from those attempting to argue against us. And it's a much bigger problem if they arrogantly assume that they're in the right on this point. Too much talking, not enough listening.
  • Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways
    No-one has come up with a valid counter argument to it so far. — Devans99

    Well then take it from there. Demonstrate the objections to be "invalid". Shouldn't start from the beginning again, each time, over and over.
  • "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion
    So, presumably, you'll openly admit that you're an ideologue? Or will you justify your own appeal to reason and logic? — S

    That's a "no", then, I suppose.
  • Does “spirit” exist? If so, what is it?
    What is a unicorn? — Daniel

    Only in philosophy.
  • Morality
    But if it is based on valid reasoned arguments and is not inconsistent then it's only nonsense and garbage according to someone's judgement, according to your own lights. — Janus

    I've engaged it myself before. I haven't just jumped right in to attacking it in this way. I doubt much good will come of seriously engaging it.

    Why is there any need to combat those you might, rightly or wrongly, think of as crackpots, or those you just disagree with, when no one is forced to read anything anyone else writes? — Janus

    Because crackpottery is bad, and crackpots need help. I don't want to see crackpottery on this forum, because I think it should have a higher standard. I'm trying the stick approach, others are trying the carrot approach. I hope that one of these approaches works, but I doubt they will.

    He is far, far too invested to be helped. He won't change. He won't take on board any criticism and suitably adapt his position. He has dedicated ten years of his life to this claptrap, and it has driven him insane. He is far too confident in his own abilities. He has unswerving faith in his own pet theory. There is no getting through to him. We've all tried.
  • Morality
    I am tired of being combative, S; I want to adopt a different approach, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and if I find valid arguments and no inconsistencies, then I will accept anyone's philosophy, as an expression of their own unique individuality, even if I disagree with its presuppositions, .. — Janus

    I disagree with that approach. I think we should combat nonsense and garbage, not encourage it. He's under the illusion that what he's saying is credible, and not crackpottery. That's a serious self-harming illusion.
  • Morality
    Just want to note that there is most certainly a conception called "Pure Reason". Much if not most of Western Philosophy holds to it. — creativesoul

    Let me guess. You think/believe that it consists in/of thought/belief, and the whole of Western philosophy utterly fails to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

    I've picked up your crazy/insane talk.
  • Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways
    ↪Devans99
    Oh look:

    Both of these arguments have been repeatedly rejected in other threads. Do you have any new justifications for them? — Echarmion

    The very first reply. Funny that. Other people are saying it, too.
  • Morality
    I think I'm done here. — creativesoul

    Thank goodness.

    I'd like to see the reasoning to support that. — Janus

    Please don't. Haven't we seen enough?

    That which exists in entirety prior to language. Utterly fail to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Existentially dependent on the latter.

    This is crazy.
  • Morality
    Yes, indeed, it seems we are! Is that a first? — Janus

    It's the first in quite some time. I recall that we agreed on much over linguistic meaning, but we disagree substantially over ethics.
  • Morality
    We are addressing only the logic of our own thinking about truth. And the logic of our thinking about truth tells us that a statement about the future which it seems must become true or false one day, for example "The Sun will go nova in 2 billion years" may or may not be true now. That just is "making sense of it all" as best we can, as far as I can tell anyway. I think the "How could we know that to be the case" has already been ruled out as irrelevant in this thinking of truth as being independent of our knowing or believing. — Janus

    Okay, so we're in agreement that it's a, "Could be, but don't know".
  • Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways
    If things go back forever, they have no start. If they have no start, there is no middle or end so they don't exist. So things cannot 'always exist'. — Devans99

    This is representative of the bad logic we first saw thousands of years ago with Zeno. It should not be taken seriously, except as some sort of challenge for a novice.
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    The existence of horses and narwhals proves the existence of unicorns.

    You could apply this principle to anything really. It's a simple formula, "because there's this, there must also be that".

    This is what makes ancient philosophy so lasting, so impossible to defeat, so impressive and amazing. It's reverse psychology, if you say something so profoundly and incomprehensibly stupid that no one can argue against it, then you win while the world scratches its head.     — "whollyrolling
  • Morality
    ↪Janus
    Well, not quite. It could be true (or false) regardless of our knowledge of it, but when it comes to making sense of it all, I think in terms of, "How could we know that to be the case?". And I can't think up an adequate answer to that question. So I accept the possibility, but that's as far as I can get. I can't get to the conclusion that it actually is true (or false) now. Truth-apt? Okay. But actually true (or false)? Can't accept. The best I can come up with is, "Could be, but I just don't know".
  • "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion
    ↪Jake
    So, presumably, you'll openly admit that you're an ideologue? Or will you justify your own appeal to reason and logic?
  • Does “spirit” exist? If so, what is it?
    ↪0 thru 9
    It's hard not to give short shrift when you've seen the same question so many times, and it goes the same way, with the same problems.

    I've given the broad answer to the question already, and I don't think that there's much more to be said. It is an ambiguous term, and it will either mean something of the magic and wizard sort, in which case the answer will be no, there's no good reason to believe that it actually exists, or it will be the deflated, "nothing to see here", ordinary phenomenon type of answer, where it's a feeling or a personality or consciousness or something along those lines.

    Question answered? Can we move on now? Is there an answer which you don't think is covered by my analysis?
Home » S