Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The final solution

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
2 is almost entirely impossible to prove.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:10:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
2 is almost entirely impossible to prove.

all 3 of them are impossible to prove. That's why they're presumptions
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, our existence IS absurd, and is really devoid of any sense beyond the fact that it makes sense in terms of events determining one another.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe.

But of course that's just simply begging the question against those who maintain that we can have knowledge of things beyond, before, or after the universe (depending on how you define "the universe").

We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)


How?

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

/
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:29:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:20:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe.

But of course that's just simply begging the question against those who maintain that we can have knowledge of things beyond, before, or after the universe (depending on how you define "the universe").

Well the only way to find out if we can have such knowledge is through empirical observation....which of course uses presumptions 1 and 2. If the debater insists that empirical observation is not necessary to have knowledge about things beyond the universe, then he violates presumptions 1 and 2, which leads to disaster.

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)


How?

Logic works in the form of unbreakable laws. Therefore, something that breaks any law of logic is inconsistent with logic. Supernatural things (which pretty much all religions assert) would violate logic. Unless of course, you can logically explain seemly supernatural events...where the burden of proof rests on the proponent of religion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:31:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

That's not making sense of existence, that's simply choosing to remain ignorant of our own ignorance by choosing to accept unsubstantiated assumptions. It's no different from accepting the existence of God on faith in order to give one a sense that the world has meaning.
: 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.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:29:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:20:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe.

But of course that's just simply begging the question against those who maintain that we can have knowledge of things beyond, before, or after the universe (depending on how you define "the universe").

Well the only way to find out if we can have such knowledge is through empirical observation....which of course uses presumptions 1 and 2. If the debater insists that empirical observation is not necessary to have knowledge about things beyond the universe, then he violates presumptions 1 and 2, which leads to disaster.


That's simply false. Tell me: did you empirically find out that all knowledge is found out empirically? What possible empirical observation or set/disjunct of observations could show that?

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)


How?

Logic works in the form of unbreakable laws. Therefore, something that breaks any law of logic is inconsistent with logic. Supernatural things (which pretty much all religions assert) would violate logic. Unless of course, you can logically explain seemly supernatural events...where the burden of proof rests on the proponent of religion.

All supernatural objects are logically impossible? I'm afraid the BoP is on you, friend.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:31:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

That's not making sense of existence, that's simply choosing to remain ignorant of our own ignorance by choosing to accept unsubstantiated assumptions. It's no different from accepting the existence of God on faith in order to give one a sense that the world has meaning.

But those presumptions are impossible to prove or disprove without getting into circular logic. So, it isn't that there is achievable knowledge we choose to remain ignorant of,...it's that we must remain ignorant because the knowledge isn't reachable. Also, am I wrong in saying that we must be sure of everything to be sure of anything?

Ignorance of something else casts doubt on the certainty of other things if not everything.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:39:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:31:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:

That's not making sense of existence, that's simply choosing to remain ignorant of our own ignorance by choosing to accept unsubstantiated assumptions. It's no different from accepting the existence of God on faith in order to give one a sense that the world has meaning.

But those presumptions are impossible to prove or disprove without getting into circular logic. So, it isn't that there is achievable knowledge we choose to remain ignorant of,...it's that we must remain ignorant because the knowledge isn't reachable. Also, am I wrong in saying that we must be sure of everything to be sure of anything?

Ignorance of something else casts doubt on the certainty of other things if not everything.

I don't think epistemological certainty exists and it ultimately boils down to the circularity and thus self-defeation of logic. You cannot prove the existence of logical laws either inferentially or non-inferentially. Not inferentially because you ultimately have to assume the truth of the law of non-contradiction in order to refute denial and not non-inferentialy either because there is clear disagreement on the existence of logical laws. This means that it's not a properly basic belief and there's no way to prove it is anyways (that's the whole point of properly basic beliefs in the first place). You're argument rests on the assumption that lack of epistemological certainty is unacceptable and so we should just accept its existence on faith against our better judgement.
: 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.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:43:37 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:39:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:31:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:

That's not making sense of existence, that's simply choosing to remain ignorant of our own ignorance by choosing to accept unsubstantiated assumptions. It's no different from accepting the existence of God on faith in order to give one a sense that the world has meaning.

But those presumptions are impossible to prove or disprove without getting into circular logic. So, it isn't that there is achievable knowledge we choose to remain ignorant of,...it's that we must remain ignorant because the knowledge isn't reachable. Also, am I wrong in saying that we must be sure of everything to be sure of anything?

Ignorance of something else casts doubt on the certainty of other things if not everything.

I don't think epistemological certainty exists and it ultimately boils down to the circularity and thus self-defeation of logic. You cannot prove the existence of logical laws either inferentially or non-inferentially. Not inferentially because you ultimately have to assume the truth of the law of non-contradiction in order to refute denial and not non-inferentialy either because there is clear disagreement on the existence of logical laws. This means that it's not a properly basic belief and there's no way to prove it is anyways (that's the whole point of properly basic beliefs in the first place). You're argument rests on the assumption that lack of epistemological certainty is unacceptable and so we should just accept its existence on faith against our better judgement.

My argument is that there is no better judgement or other option. My argument is this ultimatum: Assume logic is true and we perceive logic accurately, or the human intellect is rendered completely inert.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:04:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Doesn't change the absurdity of existence.

Dadadadadadadada
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:48:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:43:37 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:39:22 PM, 000ike wrote:

But those presumptions are impossible to prove or disprove without getting into circular logic. So, it isn't that there is achievable knowledge we choose to remain ignorant of,...it's that we must remain ignorant because the knowledge isn't reachable. Also, am I wrong in saying that we must be sure of everything to be sure of anything?

Ignorance of something else casts doubt on the certainty of other things if not everything.

I don't think epistemological certainty exists and it ultimately boils down to the circularity and thus self-defeation of logic. You cannot prove the existence of logical laws either inferentially or non-inferentially. Not inferentially because you ultimately have to assume the truth of the law of non-contradiction in order to refute denial and not non-inferentialy either because there is clear disagreement on the existence of logical laws. This means that it's not a properly basic belief and there's no way to prove it is anyways (that's the whole point of properly basic beliefs in the first place). You're argument rests on the assumption that lack of epistemological certainty is unacceptable and so we should just accept its existence on faith against our better judgement.

My argument is that there is no better judgement or other option. My argument is this ultimatum: Assume logic is true and we perceive logic accurately, or the human intellect is rendered completely inert.

So why do you deny the latter option?
: 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.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:17:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 8:06:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:48:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:43:37 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:39:22 PM, 000ike wrote:

But those presumptions are impossible to prove or disprove without getting into circular logic. So, it isn't that there is achievable knowledge we choose to remain ignorant of,...it's that we must remain ignorant because the knowledge isn't reachable. Also, am I wrong in saying that we must be sure of everything to be sure of anything?

Ignorance of something else casts doubt on the certainty of other things if not everything.

I don't think epistemological certainty exists and it ultimately boils down to the circularity and thus self-defeation of logic. You cannot prove the existence of logical laws either inferentially or non-inferentially. Not inferentially because you ultimately have to assume the truth of the law of non-contradiction in order to refute denial and not non-inferentialy either because there is clear disagreement on the existence of logical laws. This means that it's not a properly basic belief and there's no way to prove it is anyways (that's the whole point of properly basic beliefs in the first place). You're argument rests on the assumption that lack of epistemological certainty is unacceptable and so we should just accept its existence on faith against our better judgement.

My argument is that there is no better judgement or other option. My argument is this ultimatum: Assume logic is true and we perceive logic accurately, or the human intellect is rendered completely inert.

So why do you deny the latter option?

Or he could learn to live with epistemological fallibism like the rest of us normal folks.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:30:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 8:17:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/19/2012 8:06:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:48:18 PM, 000ike wrote:

My argument is that there is no better judgement or other option. My argument is this ultimatum: Assume logic is true and we perceive logic accurately, or the human intellect is rendered completely inert.

So why do you deny the latter option?

Or he could learn to live with epistemological fallibism like the rest of us normal folks.

Lol
: 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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:50:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
The Fool: this is true. But the conception of logic in the population is inconstenctent.
the hint is that you are using logic whether you like to or not.
Proof=logic. Thus you are forced into asking what is the logic of logic, but you are using logic, at the same time. But this is a deferrence kind of circularity. its the same as asking the what is the car of car.
Vs why is the car there? because its there. Not the same circularity.

Its just like asking what is the RED or RED.
The Fool: well thats silly. its RED.

Niave positivist: but the red is really just frequency wave, of magnitig radiation.

The Fool: But this is nonsese. because you can Hallucination red. You think of Red right now in your mind. and you can dream. Red. Thus Red is not waves, it a irreducible element of mind.

This should make even more sense if I remind you that all your experiences are in a framework of CONCSOUSNESS.(mind) But before I go on I want to see if you can refute this..(in good fun and for progress) We can only make progress with argumentation if it is cooperative.

For this is the PCP dialectic(NOT HEGELS). I give and idea, you try and refute it(Falsification) if you can't refute it I add on more(More precise theories) if you do. we get rid of that part, and you try and built and I refute. But it is team work not they way people do on DDO right now.

The idea is we have much more information from the experiences we have had. Its just not organized. aka its not rationalized. Part of it is cause by using vague, irrational, impercise languege. (I call this procress knowledge Refinment)

'You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.' -Robert A. Wilson
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:24:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

All this philosophy just to say religious claims are false?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 11:24:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

All this philosophy just to say religious claims are false?

He also doesn't want to face the fact that true knowledge might be impossible. But yeah basically. He's kind of pulling a classic Kierkegaard here throwing out the leap of faith in the face of the absurd.
: 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.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:02:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

Sounds like you're trying to make a transcendental argument for atheism, in which case you have a good start. But first, drop the bit about logic; most Christians believe that God, in spite of being God, is nonetheless constrained by the laws of logic. Second, make your target specific: assuming the general reliability of our perceptions of reality presumes the nonexistence of a being who (a) is capable of interfering with those perceptions and (b) might have motivations for doing so that are beyond our ken.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:21:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 11:38:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/19/2012 11:24:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

All this philosophy just to say religious claims are false?

He also doesn't want to face the fact that true knowledge might be impossible. But yeah basically. He's kind of pulling a classic Kierkegaard here throwing out the leap of faith in the face of the absurd.

The Fool:
True of real or existing make not difference to anything.
If I have a car, And I say its a true car, or a real, or existing car.
Nothing changes, its a superflous conception.

The Dollar Bill argument. (kant)
For in order to have true dollar bill there must be a fake dollar bill.
and visa versa. aka So there must be truth to have false

Our believes are filled with so many accepted assumptions that we have inadvertantly made over our llfe time.

"I once thought, that book learning, at least the kind whose reasonings are merely probable and that do not have and demonstration, having been composed and inlarges little by little from the opinion of many difference persons does not draw nearly so close to the truth as the simple reasoning that a man of Good sense can naturally make about the things he encounters. And thus, too, I thought that, because we children before men and because for a long time it was necessary for us to be governed by our appetites and our teacher (which were frequently in conflict with one another, and with perhaps neither always gave us the best advice), it is nearly as they would have been if we had had the full use of our reason frmo the moment of birth and if we had been guided by it alone.' René Descartes (exerpt from Discourse on method)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 7:48:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In any event, who says that the universe has any real sense? It's absurd, devoid of sense.

Dadadadadadadadada
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 8:58:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 7:48:51 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In any event, who says that the universe has any real sense? It's absurd, devoid of sense.

Dadadadadadadadada

The Fool: The Universe in the philosopher sense which I use the term Absolute Universe to distiquish it from natural science, or Religous sense.

That is I use the physical symbol, 'Absolute Universe' to refer to the idea of all things that exist. We need not know what these thing are but whater there is they exist.

That is what is IS(1) is itself whatever that maybe. ANd what does not exist is not there to speak about, and not there to know.

Consciousness is certain, I don't mean the word aka the physical symbol 'consiousness' for conscious is pre-linguistical. That is I must be conscious first to even learn langauge. Thus the 'physical symbol' have no barring consciousness itself. Let the word 'I" refer to the observer of consiousness. For I exist, in a frame work of consciousness and not matter what word, represent. I exist so long as consiousness is percieved. That is absolutely Certain. That actual consciousness. not the word' conscousnes. Is self evident no matter what the case even if I am tricked by God, I am that conscousness being tricked. For the cogito Is GOD PROOF!! So if you are even responding, you are in the same boat.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 9:13:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 8:58:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/20/2012 7:48:51 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In any event, who says that the universe has any real sense? It's absurd, devoid of sense.

Dadadadadadadadada

The Fool: The Universe in the philosopher sense which I use the term Absolute Universe to distiquish it from natural science, or Religous sense.

That is I use the physical symbol, 'Absolute Universe' to refer to the 'idea' of all things that exist. We need not know what these things are but whatever there is they exist.

That is what is IS. And what is not is does not exist.
For let what IS is 1, and what is not is the contadictoy 0 for it is a physical symbol but yet symbolizing nothing. aka a contradiction.

For all that exist is 1, for 1 car, 1 emotion if there is a God he is of one
even if I have 3 cars it is 1 set of three.


Consciousness is certain, I don't mean the word aka the physical symbol 'consiousness' for conscious itself is pre-linguistical. That is I must be conscious first to even learn langauge or use language. Thus the 'physical symbols' have no barring on consciousness itself. Let the word 'I" refer to 'the observer' of consiousness. For I exist, in a framework of consciousness. Even but of a sensation in consciousness, for it is still something and not nothing. Thus no matter what words, represent. I exist so long as consiousness is percieved. That is absolutely Certain. That actual consciousness, not the 'word' conscousnes. Is self- evident no matter what the case, even if I am tricked by God, I am that conscousness being tricked. For the cogito Is GOD PROOF!! Thus as foolish as I am I will never be so foolish to think I don't exist as long as there as awarness is experienced.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 9:35:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 7:48:51 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In any event, who says that the universe has any real sense? It's absurd, devoid of sense.

That is the universe as far as I know is Of Only Sense. As in literally sensations. For via certainty of the Cogito, all that in my experiences within conscious are certain as well as my conscousness as well..

That is, I can never be wrong about what I feel or what I am thinking. I could never be wrong about my own definitions because they are physical symbols of my ideas.
But I can be wrong in whether they communicated my ideas efficiently of others.
That is mistakes are only possible when they are of some form of correpondence.
For I have an Idea of a unicorn that exists absolutly, however insofar as they correpond to something outside my idea or my conscoius is another thing.

Getting around the evil demon is easy, for I was not warrented within my possible reason to assume its existence in the first place. Nor could I reject logic, because I would always be appealing it in attemp to distrust it. My acceptence or believe has no barring on the truth of anything, for we may all believe the earth flat, but it remains round regardless. My idea are not believes for I have an Idea of a leprachuan but I do not believe in leprachauns. In that I don't believe my 'Idea' of lepracauns corresponds to anything other then the 'ideas' of other people at best.
For the believe is the sensation of expectating a correpondence of somesort. In that I expect, truth of have faith in that my idea correspond to something other then itsself.

Remember not of this is 'subjective' yet! via Dollar bill argument.
in that there must be something objective to distinguish it from.) or nethier can be claimed. a I am tireD

The Fool: I can work up out to everything..its long, maybe I will do it sometime here, I have to get of this thing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:33:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
: At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

Are you sure about that?

: This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

: 1.) Logic is objectively correct

This postulate is self refuting since it is not supported by logic.

: 2.) Our perception of reality is accurate

The empirical evidence does not support this contention, neither does logic.

: 3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

No it wouldn't, the fact that they are nonsense presumptions is what casts doubt on them.

: Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

Your three postulates do not logically follow, and even if they did, your conclusion does not logically follow from them. On the contrary, religion is a method by which people make sense of the world. The Theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but to those who choose it, it provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, it is a way of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value.

: What do you think?

I think faith is a choice one makes; all you really need to do is decide. You certainly don't need to contrive nonsense philosophical postulates in order to justify your decision, you just decide whether or not you want to have faith… it is as simple as that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:10:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:33:47 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
: At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

Are you sure about that?

: This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

: 1.) Logic is objectively correct

This postulate is self refuting since it is not supported by logic.

: 2.) Our perception of reality is accurate

The empirical evidence does not support this contention, neither does logic.

: 3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

No it wouldn't, the fact that they are nonsense presumptions is what casts doubt on them.

: Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

Your three postulates do not logically follow, and even if they did, your conclusion does not logically follow from them. On the contrary, religion is a method by which people make sense of the world. The Theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but to those who choose it, it provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, it is a way of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value.

: What do you think?

I think faith is a choice one makes; all you really need to do is decide. You certainly don't need to contrive nonsense philosophical postulates in order to justify your decision, you just decide whether or not you want to have faith… it is as simple as that.

You completely missed the point. The 3 presumptions are called presumptions for a reason...yet you try to deny them by claiming they are unsupported. Also, you didn't address the argument really.

I am not arguing that theism and supernaturalism is false. I am arguing for the following ultimatum:
1. we must make all 3 presumptions,...and religion is false.

OR

2. We do not make any of those presumptions, religion can be true or false,....BUT we have no means of making sense of the world since logic is in question.

Logic is unprovable. You can't ever prove whether logic is objectively true or not. And given that all truths may or may not be related to each other in some conceivable way, we MUST have knowledge of ALL truths to have certainty of any ONE truth....because not knowing one thing, casts doubt on everything else. Perhaps that one thing affects the other things in a different way.

By the way, you can't argue against logic without engaging in a contradiction. So, either religion abides by logic, or religion can never be argued. However, the truth of the matter is that religion openly defies logic. So, that leaves us with the latter option.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:56:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 12:10:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:33:47 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
: At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

Are you sure about that?

: This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

: 1.) Logic is objectively correct

This postulate is self refuting since it is not supported by logic.

: 2.) Our perception of reality is accurate

The empirical evidence does not support this contention, neither does logic.

: 3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

No it wouldn't, the fact that they are nonsense presumptions is what casts doubt on them.

: Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.
\
Your three postulates do not logically follow, and even if they did, your conclusion does not logically follow from them.
On the contrary, religion is a method by which people make sense of the world.

The Fool; But ifs its not desriptive sense(logical organized) and connative(subjective emotion)

What is this sense?

The Fool: If you say spritual, that is problematic because the word comes from to breath' because they thought the air coming out of your mouth was you spirits. ANd ghost simply noisy Air. (because air was mystical to them. It was something but not visible) The bible was put together by The Greek speaking Roman Empire.
that is the meaning of the word in western tradition. Just got forgoten. Aka they don't have any other specific meaning in that context. If any after it was just made up to fill in the blank. So in the bible its based of Air. That is where the concepts of ghost and tranparent substances. The is no actual critiria that you can tell that you are even talking about the same thing.

The Theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but to those who choose it, it provides an intellectually

But what can you define you use of intellecuall here with any clear DEMARCATION. IF you have to look in the dictionary for you own meaning of the word. Then it meand right now in this moment when you read this and spoke it. You 'literarly have no IDEA of what you are talking about.

satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience,

The Fool: you have said nothing inparticular here. Have you seen the Chopra thread?

it is a way of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value.

The Fool: What way? Uniting in a single account; is just saying united unitied for the single account is all ready in the meaning of UNITED>

: What do you think?

I think faith is a choice one makes;

The Fool: Who cares what you think it is what is it? You are saying I "believef"" belief " is a choice one makes. A belief=faith=trust=confidence=expectation,
E.g. I belief the bus is coming soon.
I trust that the bus is coming soon.
I expect that the but is coming soon.
I am confidence that the bus is soon.

aka Faith is the subjective inclination to think your idea corresponds with something else in the universe. That is we all have an 'idea' of god or 'religion' the entire question is whether or not it corresponds, anything but a creation of our imagination. You have to show a correspondence to the universe which is not a projection of the 'Idea' you have already accepted by irrational means.

all you really need to do is decide.

The Fool: Why is that? just random? There are irrational decisions and rational decision. The actual original meaning is define by the Rationalist philosopher them selve. as to think in coherence with logic. That is YOU CANT BE WRONG OF YOUR OWN DEFINITOIN because it is the creators Idea invested in it.

You certainly don't need to contrive nonsense philosophical postulates in order to justify your decision,
The Fool; you havent given any sense. Nonsense is derived by contradition. As 1-1=0

you just decide whether or not you want to have faith… it is as simple as that.

The Fool: really you JUST decide, no thinking. No body decised what to believe. Do they not genuinly believe because they actually think it makes sense?

You completely missed the point. The 3 presumptions are called presumptions for a reason...

The Fool; the point is presumtion are irrelevant. IF you try and refute logic only by using logic. IT is because you don't have a choice. YOu can't walk in both direction at the same time. If you dont' accept the logic, it will have no difference you still won't be able to walk at the same time in both direction, whether you like it or not. That what is so beautifal about it. and why its object and you universal. Think being in you mind does make it an acception.

yet you try to deny them by claiming they are unsupported.(is based of logical claim.)
But even that is nonsense. you are using logic and then saying there for there is not login

use logic there is not logic. no it means you are being irrational. Literally.

Also, you didn't address the argument really.

I am not arguing that theism and supernaturalism is false. I am arguing for the following ultimatum:
1. we must make all 3 presumptions,...and religion is false.

OR

2. We do not make any of those presumptions, religion can be true or false,....BUT we have no means of making sense of the world since logic is in question.

Logic is unprovable.

The Fool; Logic is proof, a think in itself is a thing in itself. ake red is red. a car is a car, its not an inference they one and the same.

You can't ever prove whether logic is objectively true or not.
The Fool; is it was't we could not apply it to the world. YOu are on A COMPUTER< WHICH SOFTWARE IS LOGIC. its not because the mind is like a computer. its because we have exernalized the concepts of the MIND. Square and circles, are not in nature alone. The Computer is and extension of our MINDS. There is no such thing as memory in sense information. Nor is there anything in sense information that we could derive any possibly of the notion of computer.

We have memories. The computer is a

And given that all truths may or may not be related to each other in some conceivable way, we MUST have knowledge of ALL truths to have certainty of any ONE truth....because not knowing one thing, casts doubt on everything else. Perhaps that one thing affects the other things in a different way.

The Fool: every claim you make must be A claim, you are using logic whether you like it or not. We error in logic when we have high emotional, investment. Aka we make the most mistake when angree, or bias. or trying to keep you belief in something.

By the way, you can't argue against logic without engaging in a contradiction. So, either religion abides by logic, or religion can never be argued. However, the truth of the matter is that religion openly defies logic. So, that leaves us with the latter option.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 1:27:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:03:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
We are an intelligent species yet ignorant of the workings of the universe. We know of nothing beyond, before, or after the universe. We lack the knowledge to definitively vindicate logic, and we will never solve these problems due to natural limitations. Only an omniscient creature can know what "truth" is.

Therefore, only when man is sure of all can he be sure of anything.

This is an obvious absurdity. We can still make sense of our entire existence using the following presumptions:

1.) Logic is objectively correct
2.) Our perception of reality is accurate
3.) There is no relevant force beyond the universe that interacts with the universe. (because that would cast doubt on the correctness of the aforementioned presumptions)

Therefore, all religion and supernaturalism is false,...otherwise, we have broken down our only method of making sense of the world.

What do you think?

I'd say that my biggest problem here is with 2. Namely, it's flat-out wrong.

While there is most definitely a predictable connection between that which we perceive and our perception, to say that our sensory perception reflects the outside world in the way a photograph or other such medium might is misleading.

Consider, at the most basic level, photons hitting the eye.

If you were somehow granted direct access to the neural transmissions going from the eyes to the visual center of the brain, what you would see if a blurry field with one extremely clear spot that is bouncing around at an extremely high rate.

What we see at a conscious level is an amalgam of neurological "guesses" to give the appearance of a full range of vision.

You would better off with the assumption: "there is a predictable connection between our perception and what we perceive."

As to 1, I have a quick question: Is the law of excluded middle "objectively true" even when we analyze systems using paraconsistent logic?