Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is religion built upon lies?

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 9:49:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This thread will be a dialogue between a naturalist (myself) and a believer (wjmelements) over whether or not Christianity is true. I will allow wjmelements to state what it is that he believes so that the conversation can begin.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 9:55:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I remember this was supposed to be about:
"The end of rationalism is irrationalism", which I am willing to discuss.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:00:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 9:55:03 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I remember this was supposed to be about:
"The end of rationalism is irrationalism", which I am willing to discuss.

Ok, that will be what's under discussion. You will have to show why it's justifiable to have some beliefs that aren't logically justified. In other words, you will have to demonstrate how some things can be known without the use of logic or reason.

I maintain that if one abandons rationalism then irrationalism is an inevitable consequence.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:02:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:00:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
you will have to demonstrate how some things can be known without the use of logic or reason.

"known" isn't the correct word. Assumed or believed without reasonal basis is more accurate.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:04:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

Existence exists.

"Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists.

To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist. In the statement "something exists", the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists refers to the axiom of existence. They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom." - importanceofphilosophy.com[1]

[1] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:10:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:04:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

Existence exists.

"Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists.

To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist. In the statement "something exists", the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists refers to the axiom of existence. They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom." - importanceofphilosophy.com[1]

This is essentially an ontalogical argument, definting "something" and then asserting that something must exist in order to be something. Still circular.

Cogntion does not require existence of any thing in particular. Perception only requires cognition. We can only conclude the existence of cognition.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:11:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I would say we naturally assume things.
Like 3 dimensional space and the like. We notice patterns and assume they represent reality.

For the Universe, I'd say we don't need faith to justify assuming it, we just need to show that it is the assumption that best fits the evidence, and therefore the assumption that would be the first to go if the patterns/evidence changes.
"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."
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:12:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:11:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I would say we naturally assume things.
Like 3 dimensional space and the like. We notice patterns and assume they represent reality.

For the Universe, I'd say we don't need faith to justify assuming it, we just need to show that it is the assumption that best fits the evidence, and therefore the assumption that would be the first to go if the patterns/evidence changes.

The "evidence" lies entirely within the conclusion, making the reasoning circular.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:12:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:11:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I would say we naturally assume things.
Like 3 dimensional space and the like. We notice patterns and assume they represent reality.

For the Universe, I'd say we don't need faith to justify assuming it, we just need to show that it is the assumption that best fits the evidence, and therefore the assumption that would be the first to go if the patterns/evidence changes.

If we can show the assumption to be drawn from the patterns of experience, the most restricted to evidence, and the most falsifiable, we are as justified as justification gets.
"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
12/18/2009 10:13:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:12:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:11:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I would say we naturally assume things.
Like 3 dimensional space and the like. We notice patterns and assume they represent reality.

For the Universe, I'd say we don't need faith to justify assuming it, we just need to show that it is the assumption that best fits the evidence, and therefore the assumption that would be the first to go if the patterns/evidence changes.

The "evidence" lies entirely within the conclusion, making the reasoning circular.

No the evidence is qualia/ experience
"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."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:13:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:11:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I would say we naturally assume things.
Like 3 dimensional space and the like. We notice patterns and assume they represent reality.

For the Universe, I'd say we don't need faith to justify assuming it, we just need to show that it is the assumption that best fits the evidence, and therefore the assumption that would be the first to go if the patterns/evidence changes.

How do we know that the evidence exists? All that can be known for certain is a priori knowledge.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology, but how does this impact the conversation.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:15:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:13:21 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:12:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:11:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I would say we naturally assume things.
Like 3 dimensional space and the like. We notice patterns and assume they represent reality.

For the Universe, I'd say we don't need faith to justify assuming it, we just need to show that it is the assumption that best fits the evidence, and therefore the assumption that would be the first to go if the patterns/evidence changes.

The "evidence" lies entirely within the conclusion, making the reasoning circular.

No the evidence is qualia/ experience

Which comes from perception. To assume perception is true based on perception is circular.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:16:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology,

Good. You may begin.

but how does this impact the conversation.

If we can't even justify the existence of the universe on rationalism, then irrationalism is sometimes justified.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:10:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:04:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

Existence exists.

"Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists.

To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist. In the statement "something exists", the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists refers to the axiom of existence. They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom." - importanceofphilosophy.com[1]

This is essentially an ontalogical argument, definting "something" and then asserting that something must exist in order to be something. Still circular.

Cogntion does not require existence of any thing in particular. Perception only requires cognition. We can only conclude the existence of cognition.

Are you really an adherent to solipsism?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:17:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:16:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology,

Good. You may begin.

but how does this impact the conversation.

If we can't even justify the existence of the universe on rationalism, then irrationalism is sometimes justified.

Define rationalism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:18:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you really an adherent to solipsism?

On and off, but for the purpose of this point in the discussion, yes.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:18:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:10:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:04:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

Existence exists.

"Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists.

To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist. In the statement "something exists", the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists refers to the axiom of existence. They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom." - importanceofphilosophy.com[1]

This is essentially an ontalogical argument, definting "something" and then asserting that something must exist in order to be something. Still circular.

Cogntion does not require existence of any thing in particular. Perception only requires cognition. We can only conclude the existence of cognition.

Are you really an adherent to solipsism?

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists.[1]

He is not claiming that his mind is all that exists, he is merely saying that he cannot rule out the possibility.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:19:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:18:30 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you really an adherent to solipsism?

On and off, but for the purpose of this point in the discussion, yes.

Ah, I apologize. I mis-stated your position.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:19:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:17:44 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:16:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology,

Good. You may begin.

but how does this impact the conversation.

If we can't even justify the existence of the universe on rationalism, then irrationalism is sometimes justified.

Define rationalism.

I believe the definition we are using is something like or similar to:
"That all belief must be based on reason"
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:20:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:19:31 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:44 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:16:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology,

Good. You may begin.

but how does this impact the conversation.

If we can't even justify the existence of the universe on rationalism, then irrationalism is sometimes justified.

Define rationalism.

I believe the definition we are using is something like or similar to:
"That all belief must be based on reason"

Does must mean should? If so, who defines should? That seems like a subjective opinion with no objective right or wrong answer.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:19:30 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:18:30 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you really an adherent to solipsism?

On and off, but for the purpose of this point in the discussion, yes.

Ah, I apologize. I mis-stated your position.

No problem. I don't "adhere" to solipsism, so you were correct. I am adhering to it at the moment, but I don't generally.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:22:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:20:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:19:31 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:44 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:16:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology,

Good. You may begin.

but how does this impact the conversation.

If we can't even justify the existence of the universe on rationalism, then irrationalism is sometimes justified.

Define rationalism.

I believe the definition we are using is something like or similar to:
"That all belief must be based on reason"

Does must mean should? If so, who defines should? That seems like a subjective opinion with no objective right or wrong answer.

That is an objective must, not a subjective should.

There are plenty of more valid definitions; that one was improvised.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:22:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:20:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:19:30 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:18:30 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you really an adherent to solipsism?

On and off, but for the purpose of this point in the discussion, yes.

Ah, I apologize. I mis-stated your position.

No problem. I don't "adhere" to solipsism, so you were correct. I am adhering to it at the moment, but I don't generally.

Prove that your mind is all that exists. Assuming that we are different minds, I know this to be false.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:24:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:22:22 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:20:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:19:31 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:44 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:16:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:14:26 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:01:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
All that the individual can truly be sure of is its own cognition and its own perception. It cannot be sure of the truth of its perception without circular reasoning. Therefore, the individual must rely on faith just to assume the existence of the universe.

I don't mind getting into an argument about Descartes epistemology,

Good. You may begin.

but how does this impact the conversation.

If we can't even justify the existence of the universe on rationalism, then irrationalism is sometimes justified.

Define rationalism.

I believe the definition we are using is something like or similar to:
"That all belief must be based on reason"

Does must mean should? If so, who defines should? That seems like a subjective opinion with no objective right or wrong answer.

That is an objective must, not a subjective should.

There are plenty of more valid definitions; that one was improvised.

Is the argument that one is incapable of having faith in something that is irrational?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:24:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Which comes from perception. To assume perception is true based on perception is circular.

Perceiving; making sense out of qualia; is our nature.
That is what we naturally do. It's not an active decision, but automatic. When consciously considering which 'perceptions' of ours are most justifiable to hold as being "real/true" those which are most closely drawn from the patterns of experience; those which are most likely to fail if the patterns change (falsifiable); are the most reasonable to assume.
"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."
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:24:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:22:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:20:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:19:30 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:18:30 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/18/2009 10:17:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you really an adherent to solipsism?

On and off, but for the purpose of this point in the discussion, yes.

Ah, I apologize. I mis-stated your position.

No problem. I don't "adhere" to solipsism, so you were correct. I am adhering to it at the moment, but I don't generally.

Prove that your mind is all that exists. Assuming that we are different minds, I know this to be false.

BOP lies on the case that assumes the most. That would be you. Occam's Razor is in my favor.

And it isn't that "your" mind doesn't exist, it's just that it exists within mine and that my consciousness is just a limit of my mind.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:26:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 10:24:19 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Is the argument that one is incapable of having faith in something that is irrational?

A broader statement of the topic is whether it is necessary to assume or believe without reason. The "rationalist" side would argue nay, while the other argues for.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 10:27:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When consciously considering which 'perceptions' of ours are most justifiable to hold as being "real/true"

I also hold this to be a naturally occuring process.
"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."