Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: answer this question?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:23:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

This is the "matrix argument", where reality are just impulses interpreted by your brain.
Based on neural inputs that we have, we calculate the probability of something being real and assume as real until proven otherwise..
Like when you see a computer animation and know that it is not real.

So, based on my experience and comparisons, I know that there is no godzilla, superman, and a bearded giant man living in the clouds.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:29:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:23:49 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

This is the "matrix argument", where reality are just impulses interpreted by your brain.
Based on neural inputs that we have, we calculate the probability of something being real and assume as real until proven otherwise..
Like when you see a computer animation and know that it is not real.

So, based on my experience and comparisons, I know that there is no godzilla, superman, and a bearded giant man living in the clouds.

So explain to me how an emergent reality from the non-mental doesn't necessitate a "matrix" argument?
Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:30:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes with completely different universal laws. Why do they exist at all? Well, scientists don't really know. Remember, we don't really know how "nothing" behaves. We can't recreate a place without space, energy, and mass so we have no idea what it would actually do.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:34:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:30:17 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes with completely different universal laws. Why do they exist at all? Well, scientists don't really know. Remember, we don't really know how "nothing" behaves. We can't recreate a place without space, energy, and mass so we have no idea what it would actually do.

That's not really answering the question. How do you *know* that there *might be* different universes with different universal laws without appealing to an objective mental reality?
Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:40:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:34:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:30:17 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes with completely different universal laws. Why do they exist at all? Well, scientists don't really know. Remember, we don't really know how "nothing" behaves. We can't recreate a place without space, energy, and mass so we have no idea what it would actually do.

That's not really answering the question. How do you *know* that there *might be* different universes with different universal laws without appealing to an objective mental reality?
We don't know for sure. However, we shouldn't immediately conclude that this originated from god. Infinite universes is nothing more than a idea at this point.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:43:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:40:28 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:34:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:30:17 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes with completely different universal laws. Why do they exist at all? Well, scientists don't really know. Remember, we don't really know how "nothing" behaves. We can't recreate a place without space, energy, and mass so we have no idea what it would actually do.

That's not really answering the question. How do you *know* that there *might be* different universes with different universal laws without appealing to an objective mental reality?
We don't know for sure. However, we shouldn't immediately conclude that this originated from god. Infinite universes is nothing more than a idea at this point.

Then you *believe* you don't *know* anything. I think you're underestimating my point. You don't *know* that the sky is even blue without appealing to an objective mental reality.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 11:54:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

Can the characters in the computer simulation game called, "The Sims" understand who they are unless they are told by their Creator who they are?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 11:57:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have found a funny argument for countering that argument:
TAG= The transcendental argument for the existence of God
P1) God does not exist.
P2) TAG proposes that if god does not exist, then truth does not exist.
P3) If god does not exist then P1 is true.
C) from 2 and 3, TAG is not sound.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:00:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

First, the laws of logic are merely a set of descriptors of reality. They are a human invention coined to describe how everything behaves, not unlike the laws of mathematics. And we don't "discover" new fields of mathematics, we invent them. Asking what grounds the laws of logic is like asking what grounds the rules of chess. Nothing does. We invented them.

Second, solipsism is a philosophical hurdle we can't exactly surmount. So yes, we don't really *know* anything (especially since we can't agree on the definition of knowledge). But of course, not knowing anything certainly doesn't entail the existence of God.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:02:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:00:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

First, the laws of logic are merely a set of descriptors of reality. They are a human invention coined to describe how everything behaves, not unlike the laws of mathematics. And we don't "discover" new fields of mathematics, we invent them. Asking what grounds the laws of logic is like asking what grounds the rules of chess. Nothing does. We invented them.

So why would I believe what you're saying here is true?

Second, solipsism is a philosophical hurdle we can't exactly surmount. So yes, we don't really *know* anything (especially since we can't agree on the definition of knowledge). But of course, not knowing anything certainly doesn't entail the existence of God.

Then I have no reason to believe what you're telling me is true.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:05:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:02:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:00:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

First, the laws of logic are merely a set of descriptors of reality. They are a human invention coined to describe how everything behaves, not unlike the laws of mathematics. And we don't "discover" new fields of mathematics, we invent them. Asking what grounds the laws of logic is like asking what grounds the rules of chess. Nothing does. We invented them.

So why would I believe what you're saying here is true?

Technically, you have no reason. But you also have no reason to believe that a person has even wrote this instead of it just being a hallucination. Either way, I'm not sure what hat you're pulling God out of given that we can't known anything.

Second, solipsism is a philosophical hurdle we can't exactly surmount. So yes, we don't really *know* anything (especially since we can't agree on the definition of knowledge). But of course, not knowing anything certainly doesn't entail the existence of God.

Then I have no reason to believe what you're telling me is true.

Again, you don't. But that's just solipsism for you. What reason do I have to believe that what YOU say is true?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:05:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:02:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:00:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

First, the laws of logic are merely a set of descriptors of reality. They are a human invention coined to describe how everything behaves, not unlike the laws of mathematics. And we don't "discover" new fields of mathematics, we invent them. Asking what grounds the laws of logic is like asking what grounds the rules of chess. Nothing does. We invented them.

So why would I believe what you're saying here is true?

Technically, you have no reason. But you also have no reason to believe that a person has even wrote this instead of it just being a hallucination. Either way, I'm not sure what hat you're pulling God out of given that we can't known anything.

Because belief in God posits an objective mental reality. Anything else that posits a truth claim is self-refuting.

Second, solipsism is a philosophical hurdle we can't exactly surmount. So yes, we don't really *know* anything (especially since we can't agree on the definition of knowledge). But of course, not knowing anything certainly doesn't entail the existence of God.

Then I have no reason to believe what you're telling me is true.

Again, you don't. But that's just solipsism for you. What reason do I have to believe that what YOU say is true?

Because I'm positing an objective mental reality and you aren't. If your arguments are self-refuting you can't make *any* truth claims.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:18:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:14:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:05:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:02:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:00:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

First, the laws of logic are merely a set of descriptors of reality. They are a human invention coined to describe how everything behaves, not unlike the laws of mathematics. And we don't "discover" new fields of mathematics, we invent them. Asking what grounds the laws of logic is like asking what grounds the rules of chess. Nothing does. We invented them.

So why would I believe what you're saying here is true?

Technically, you have no reason. But you also have no reason to believe that a person has even wrote this instead of it just being a hallucination. Either way, I'm not sure what hat you're pulling God out of given that we can't known anything.

Because belief in God posits an objective mental reality. Anything else that posits a truth claim is self-refuting.

Not necessarily. How does God lead to an objective mental reality? Also, simply positing something doesn't make it true, even if one its tenets is that truth is possible.

Second, solipsism is a philosophical hurdle we can't exactly surmount. So yes, we don't really *know* anything (especially since we can't agree on the definition of knowledge). But of course, not knowing anything certainly doesn't entail the existence of God.

Then I have no reason to believe what you're telling me is true.

Again, you don't. But that's just solipsism for you. What reason do I have to believe that what YOU say is true?

Because I'm positing an objective mental reality and you aren't. If your arguments are self-refuting you can't make *any* truth claims.

And positing that reality doesn't make it so. Truth still can't be obtained even if you stipulate that it can.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:24:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:18:19 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:14:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:05:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:02:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:00:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

First, the laws of logic are merely a set of descriptors of reality. They are a human invention coined to describe how everything behaves, not unlike the laws of mathematics. And we don't "discover" new fields of mathematics, we invent them. Asking what grounds the laws of logic is like asking what grounds the rules of chess. Nothing does. We invented them.

So why would I believe what you're saying here is true?

Technically, you have no reason. But you also have no reason to believe that a person has even wrote this instead of it just being a hallucination. Either way, I'm not sure what hat you're pulling God out of given that we can't known anything.

Because belief in God posits an objective mental reality. Anything else that posits a truth claim is self-refuting.

Not necessarily. How does God lead to an objective mental reality? Also, simply positing something doesn't make it true, even if one its tenets is that truth is possible.

Second, solipsism is a philosophical hurdle we can't exactly surmount. So yes, we don't really *know* anything (especially since we can't agree on the definition of knowledge). But of course, not knowing anything certainly doesn't entail the existence of God.

Then I have no reason to believe what you're telling me is true.

Again, you don't. But that's just solipsism for you. What reason do I have to believe that what YOU say is true?

Because I'm positing an objective mental reality and you aren't. If your arguments are self-refuting you can't make *any* truth claims.

And positing that reality doesn't make it so. Truth still can't be obtained even if you stipulate that it can.

1) a necessary condition for truth doesnt exist
2) X is true
C) positing X as true is self-refuting

1) a necessary condition for truth exists
2) X is true
C) positing X as true is at least possibly true
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:23:49 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

This is the "matrix argument", where reality are just impulses interpreted by your brain.
Based on neural inputs that we have, we calculate the probability of something being real and assume as real until proven otherwise..
Like when you see a computer animation and know that it is not real.

So, based on my experience and comparisons, I know that there is no godzilla, superman, and a bearded giant man living in the clouds.

What reason to you have to believe that reality is real? How can you confirm that any proof of reality is real?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

I don't see a problem with not knowing.

I doubt we could have landed a probe on a comet 300 million miles away without some kind of understanding about the world around us. We have the capacity to predict and test constants and similarities in nature.
To believe is to know nothing.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:41:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:34:09 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

I don't see a problem with not knowing.

I doubt we could have landed a probe on a comet 300 million miles away without some kind of understanding about the world around us. We have the capacity to predict and test constants and similarities in nature.

So what you're saying is that we DO know. Right?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:41:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:34:09 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

I don't see a problem with not knowing.

I doubt we could have landed a probe on a comet 300 million miles away without some kind of understanding about the world around us. We have the capacity to predict and test constants and similarities in nature.

So what you're saying is that we DO know. Right?

Not necessarily. We know very little. The key is to know what we don't know.
To believe is to know nothing.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:51:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:47:59 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:41:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:34:09 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

I don't see a problem with not knowing.

I doubt we could have landed a probe on a comet 300 million miles away without some kind of understanding about the world around us. We have the capacity to predict and test constants and similarities in nature.

So what you're saying is that we DO know. Right?

Not necessarily. We know very little. The key is to know what we don't know.

But how would you know that you know very little if you don't know anything?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:00:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:51:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:47:59 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:41:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:34:09 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

I don't see a problem with not knowing.

I doubt we could have landed a probe on a comet 300 million miles away without some kind of understanding about the world around us. We have the capacity to predict and test constants and similarities in nature.

So what you're saying is that we DO know. Right?

Not necessarily. We know very little. The key is to know what we don't know.

But how would you know that you know very little if you don't know anything?

I didn't say I don't know anything. I know there are things in the unverse that we don't know about. As do you. I know that I don't know what happened before the big bang. I know that I don't know if some kind of deity exists.
To believe is to know nothing.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

That doesn't explain how the logic is self-defeating. Also, what is arbitrary about withholding belief until evidence is provided? I'm not even sure your sentence is coherent.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:23:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 3:00:47 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:51:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:47:59 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:41:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:34:09 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

I don't see a problem with not knowing.

I doubt we could have landed a probe on a comet 300 million miles away without some kind of understanding about the world around us. We have the capacity to predict and test constants and similarities in nature.

So what you're saying is that we DO know. Right?

Not necessarily. We know very little. The key is to know what we don't know.

But how would you know that you know very little if you don't know anything?

I didn't say I don't know anything. I know there are things in the unverse that we don't know about. As do you. I know that I don't know what happened before the big bang. I know that I don't know if some kind of deity exists.

how do you account for knowing anything if our abstract perceptions of reality are emergent from the non-mental? Any kind of 'knowledge' posits an abstract, invariant, and universal mental reality. Unless we've just made really lucky predictions that got us to the moon?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:31:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 3:21:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:00:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:58:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:57:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:24:06 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

I'm fine accepting that we can only "believe" things to be true. And I'll reserve that belief for things that have evidence to support them.

This is self-refuting logic.

How so?

Because if knowledge isn't possible waiting until you have evidence for something in order to believe it is utterly arbitrary.

That doesn't explain how the logic is self-defeating. Also, what is arbitrary about withholding belief until evidence is provided? I'm not even sure your sentence is coherent.

(1) I will accept that we can only believe things to be true
(2) I won't believe anything until I have evidence

So why would it matter that you had evidence for anything if it's not necessary? Belief without knowledge is meaningless. "Santa clause exists" would have the same truth value as "the sky is blue."
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:38:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

We know that something must exist. We humans must go on the best of our knowledge. The good thing about scientific facts is that they don't contradict each other, so within our understanding of the universe we have fact.

Scientific laws can be used to predict outcomes with certainty within the human understanding of the world. The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc. cannot be used in such a manner.

Current scientific observations easily dispute the creationist stories, especially seeing as the burden of proof still rests on the creationists to prove the existence of an omnipotent being. IF an omnipotent being were actually proven to exist, then the religious claims against the specifics of things such as the creation of the Earth would prove infinitely difficult to refute.

Seeing as theists do not have proof that their deities exist, we must conclude that their belief is founded on observation. Since their belief is founded on observation, it is a simple matter to present observations that are proven and win the argument based on evidence.

When you touch a hot iron, what do you think will happen based on your knowledge? Scientific knowledge is proven to be useful. Every human relies on observation (science), while only theists rely on theism.

Science is innately superior to theism.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 11:54:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:09:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If reality is emergent from the non-mental it necessarily follows that we can't *know* anything for sure since 'knowledge' posits an objective mental reality. We could only *believe* things to be true.

So how would you answer this?

Can the characters in the computer simulation game called, "The Sims" understand who they are unless they are told by their Creator who they are?

So I'm assuming you have proof that whatever wrote the Bible was the same thing that created humans, and that humans were not the eventual product of the expansion of a universal singularity.
You can call me Mark if you like.