Total Posts:174|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nothing is certain.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:59:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel very strongly that I should have won this debate. All the people that have voted so far seem to feel differently. None of them, however, have given any adequate reason for their choice. I have made this thread to discuss my debate further as well as it's subject matter, 'Nothing is certain.' [http://www.debate.org...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:53:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We can only be 100% certain that there is some form of existence. This is self evident.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:54:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
But you already knew that, now didn't cha?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:32:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I saw the debate earlier, and having skimmed it I thought you should've won too...

However.. I don't vote
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:03:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 8:53:42 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
We can only be 100% certain that there is some form of existence. This is self evident.

I don't think even this is 100% certain. How do you know there isn't some defect in your mental processes that leads you to believe that it's self evident?

Consider the argument:

1. I am experiencing.
2. If I am experiencing, I must exist in some form.
3. Therefore, something exists in some form.

But you're employing your potentially defective brain to evaluate that argument. There might be some massive hole in it that we can't see.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:13:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:07:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
Nothing is certain? You sure about that?

Pointing out that contradiction doesn't really solve the problem. There still remains the issue of discovering something that we are justified in being absolutely certain about.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:15:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:13:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:07:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
Nothing is certain? You sure about that?

Pointing out that contradiction doesn't really solve the problem. There still remains the issue of discovering something that we are justified in being absolutely certain about.

Well, if you're going to force a serious answer out of me, I'll have to go the previously mentioned Descartean route.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:18:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To the OP, you admit you didn't understand his language argument which was an enormous part of his case against certainty. Pro probably wrote 6x what you did and to still assert that you won is ridiculous given you just didn't address what you didn't understand.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:40:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:18:22 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
To the OP, you admit you didn't understand his language argument which was an enormous part of his case against certainty. Pro probably wrote 6x what you did and to still assert that you won is ridiculous given you just didn't address what you didn't understand.

I would also submit that any judge would have to have a few philosophy courses to understand... Bieber judged the round correctly. It wasn't a bad debate, but more or less the outcome of the debate is the result of a significant difference in philosophical exposure between the various debaters.
Tsar of DDO
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:45:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The proposition, "Nothing is certain" is so obviously self-refuting I'm surprised it's even being discussed.

Second, Descartes argued that at least he exists, for he is a thinking thing, and that to doubt that he exists, he would have to exist in the first place do doubt!

Con's loss to this just goes to show the flaws of debating online if anything.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 12:16:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 8:53:42 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
We can only be 100% certain that there is some form of existence. This is self evident.

I was guna say dat!

I was actually thinking about doing a debate on objective knowledge or something of the sorts taking the con stance(which would have been devils advocate), but changed my mind due to the obviousness of existence.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:45:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:03:13 AM, Kinesis wrote:
1. I am experiencing.
2. If I am experiencing, I must exist in some form.
3. Therefore, something exists in some form.

But you're employing your potentially defective brain to evaluate that argument. There might be some massive hole in it that we can't see.

that suggests a defective brain exists...

however that's not even necessary..

how bout: Experience.. Therefore: Something!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:47:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There might be some massive hole in it that we can't see.

It would seem I cannot think otherwise.. given that such thinking occurs..

given thinking, therefore thinking.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:59:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:47:47 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
There might be some massive hole in it that we can't see.

It would seem I cannot think otherwise.. given that such thinking occurs..

given thinking, therefore thinking.

A, :. A
If somehow I come to see things differently.. I suppose I'll go with the flow.. but Given 'A' I can't see how it's Not 'A'

Granted, There may not be a reason to point out, or describe, "A" in particular detail in the first place... But, if A then A makes sense.

so... Something, :. Something.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:23:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually, I made my decision for a number of reasons. Firstly, your opponent made a comparatively large speech about how existence may not exist, and you simply posted one sentence as your constructive, with no evidence to support the fact that your sole argument that "existence exists" was true, other than asking the audience to vote off of preconceived biases. Secondly, you practically dropped the language and dimensional "A=A" arguments, which contribute greatly to the Pro's case.

Lastly, grow up. It's extremely vain to assume that when you're losing unanimously everyone voter was wrong. It's also extremely childish to Message each one personally to accuse them of votebombing (at least he messaged me and worded it as though he messaged everyone). You lose some and you win some, and now you need to learn how to prove that existence exists so you can do better next time.

I mean, I personally believe in your side, but I gave the arguments to Pro because pro made better arguments. Since you asked why , I'll copy and paste this to your Message just in case you don't see this.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Awesome-Sauce
Posts: 208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 6:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Death is a certain thing. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, your life on Earth is sure to end sometime.
Cogito ergo sum - Rene Descartes

: At 6/23/2012 1:15:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote: (to Jimtimmy)
:
: You are the equivelent of a fly buzzing around a cow. I can just swat you with my tail without it taking my attention away from grazing the sweet grass that is DDO.

DDOians for a better DDO! (DDOfabDDO)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 7:40:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:23:37 PM, TheOrator wrote:
Firstly, your opponent made a comparatively large speech about how existence may not exist, and you simply posted one sentence as your constructive, with no evidence to support the fact that your sole argument that "existence exists" was true, other than asking the audience to vote off of preconceived biases.

I said that for an illusion to exist there must be some form of existence in the first place. Not sure what you're saying here.

Secondly, you practically dropped the language and dimensional "A=A" arguments, which contribute greatly to the Pro's case.

The language argument made no sense. Even if words have no metaphysical connection to their meanings (nor do thoughts), my point still stands. There must be something that exists to explain experiences or sensations. I'm not sure how this was relevant and is basically a huge logical fallacy.

On the other hand, if he was trying to say that no word truly meant anything because they lacked a metaphysical connection to reality, his argument still fails, because words and thoughts are representations of whatever they refer to. The A=A argument was an attempt to twist the definition of objective reality into his previous definition (sensation) and was countered in the last round by my explanation.

Lastly, grow up. It's extremely vain to assume that when you're losing unanimously everyone voter was wrong.

I am upset that they not only voted against me on a debate which I considered to be an easy win, but failed to describe the reasons for which I lost. I see people voting on other debates and leaving RDFs like "Pro failed to counter most of the arguments," and other people seem to consider it votebombing.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 7:47:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:40:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:18:22 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
To the OP, you admit you didn't understand his language argument which was an enormous part of his case against certainty. Pro probably wrote 6x what you did and to still assert that you won is ridiculous given you just didn't address what you didn't understand.

Why not just explain it to me? It would be constructive, and it would piss me off so much less than leaving a comment basically saying "Mouthwash failed to refute his language argument, probably because he's only fifteen."

I would also submit that any judge would have to have a few philosophy courses to understand... Bieber judged the round correctly. It wasn't a bad debate, but more or less the outcome of the debate is the result of a significant difference in philosophical exposure between the various debaters.

I don't have much exposure, actually. Most of my knowledge of philosophy comes from my own ideas and this site. If my loss had been adequately explained I wouldn't have made a big deal about it at all.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:23:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 7:47:00 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:40:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:18:22 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
To the OP, you admit you didn't understand his language argument which was an enormous part of his case against certainty. Pro probably wrote 6x what you did and to still assert that you won is ridiculous given you just didn't address what you didn't understand.

Why not just explain it to me? It would be constructive, and it would piss me off so much less than leaving a comment basically saying "Mouthwash failed to refute his language argument, probably because he's only fifteen."

I would also submit that any judge would have to have a few philosophy courses to understand... Bieber judged the round correctly. It wasn't a bad debate, but more or less the outcome of the debate is the result of a significant difference in philosophical exposure between the various debaters.

I don't have much exposure, actually. Most of my knowledge of philosophy comes from my own ideas and this site. If my loss had been adequately explained I wouldn't have made a big deal about it at all.

I grant you that some RFD's were sardonically written, which I would't personally do, for various reasons. Fortunately, there is a wide internet world of philosophical resource available to you should you wish to avail yourself to learning further. Keep learning though, that's the important thing (for all of us, lol).
Tsar of DDO
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 6:22:53 PM, Awesome-Sauce wrote:
Death is a certain thing. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, your life on Earth is sure to end sometime.

Well, there was this one guy....
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:12:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 8:32:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/7/2012 6:22:53 PM, Awesome-Sauce wrote:
Death is a certain thing. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, your life on Earth is sure to end sometime.

Well, there was this one guy....

May the jimmie rustlin' begin.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 6:11:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:45:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:03:13 AM, Kinesis wrote:
1. I am experiencing.
2. If I am experiencing, I must exist in some form.
3. Therefore, something exists in some form.

But you're employing your potentially defective brain to evaluate that argument. There might be some massive hole in it that we can't see.

that suggests a defective brain exists...

however that's not even necessary..

how bout: Experience.. Therefore: Something!

That argument might be invalid or unsound in some way. It might be that you don't have to exist in order to experience something. And it might just be because of your defective brain that you think that that possibility is absurd.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 6:19:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 11:12:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
May the jimmie rustlin' begin.

WTF does that mean??? Seriously, what?? WTF is a'jimmie' and how does it 'rustle'??
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:11:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 6:24:58 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Someone please tell me they've read Wittgenstein's On Certainty here.

I've never read it but I know what you're referring to. He argued that some sort of common ground was necessary for the possibility of communicative argumentation (basically). I more or less agree with the proposition, though I realize this does nothing to convince those with internal doubts regarding the existence of the external world.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:24:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 6:19:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/7/2012 11:12:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
May the jimmie rustlin' begin.

WTF does that mean??? Seriously, what?? WTF is a'jimmie' and how does it 'rustle'??

Your post is an excellent example of what jimmie rustling is.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's sad how easy that debate would have been to win.

Get pro to agree to certainty as being the case where we are "certain" of a proposition if we can say it is true (accurately describes ontic/whatever) without a shred of doubt. For instance, we would say we are certain "the sun will rise tomorrow" if we know it is impossible for the sun to not rise.

Then, give some examples of necessity in modal logic applying to propositions. They would all be statements we are 100% certain are true.

If you want to get fancy, toss in some necessity a posteriori like "All water is H20." We can say that with 100% certainty because if it were not H20, it would not be water. If tomorrow, we discovered every drop of liquid we call water was actually made of H30, we would have been wrongly ascribing the label "water" to the substance. But that does not change the fact that water, if encountered, will be H20.

Done.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:24:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wouldn't the phrase "nothing is certain" is contradictory?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:24:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:03:13 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/7/2012 8:53:42 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
We can only be 100% certain that there is some form of existence. This is self evident.

I don't think even this is 100% certain. How do you know there isn't some defect in your mental processes that leads you to believe that it's self evident?

Consider the argument:

1. I am experiencing.
2. If I am experiencing, I must exist in some form.
3. Therefore, something exists in some form.

But you're employing your potentially defective brain to evaluate that argument. There might be some massive hole in it that we can't see.

I feel like you just proved Cosmics point....

Whether there is a defect doesn't matter for the purposes of cogito ergo sum. We still know there is something there that could be defective. He did say, "in some form." But, defective is a form.

Maybe you can clarify?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.