So tempting.
@Giles:
I have noticed (somewhat surprisingly, if I can be surprised by this anymore) that Hume is in the “Evil Philosopher of the Month that True Libertarians Hate Club”. What the the hell brought this on? More importantly who is next? My bet is Kant, he needs a new good “true libertarian” style comeuppance.
Way off topic:
I think I recall you mentioning you specialized in Medieval history. Do you know anything of this book?
It seems as if it could be really interesting, but I am not willing to shell out 100 bucks for an economic history book I know nothing about
No, like I implied, even testimony in a criminal case should not be enough to convict someone of a crime. One does not have to see the crime, to know a crime was committed. If someone kills another, there are other things that can be used to prove who did it besides testimony.
Same with reality. Not only have I seen the power of gravity, it is repeatable. Amazingly, lots of people believe God answers prayers, even though it only seems to happen every once in a while, which would be more indicative of coincidence, not a God answering prayers.
If you think that testimony is sufficient evidence, then yes you do. Otherwise you are being inconsistent.
And what do you base your belief on?
I did not say you made that claim. But the fact is, they all do have equal credibility.
I am a deist, not an atheist.
No, I am not making any claims whatsoever. It is the religious people making the claim that God communicates with mankind. I just claim I don’t know that she does. I obviously cannot prove a negative.
No, I am not certain it did not happen. I just have not seen any evidence to suggest it really did.
@ignosticism as a decent definition
I do not believe this to be a tenable view to make ones definitive and distinct seperate views on. I think at best it is just one of the tools an atheist or agnostic could use when discussing things.
The fact is, I think the Eastern Orthodox Church could define itself as ignostic. What it knows:
That somehow God came to earth in the form of man
There are people who God has chosen to represent him through time (prophets, etc)
There is a long line of traditions, in some cases (in their view), unbroken since the time of Jesus, or before.
There is a long tradition of people interacting with God on a personal basis, and miracles being performed through God
What they do not have is a working definition of God, nor do they have any explanation for how and perhaps why anything happened the way it did. They don’t claim to, they do have tools to help them with their spiritual beliefs. But the definition of many of their rituals; Sacred Mysteries, ought to clue some in that they do not define the concept of God. In essence, what they have is some indefinable, unknowable mystery being revealed to them through a long process of discovery and the acquisition of new tools; much like everything else in this world.
God, or the concept of God, is not verifiable, but (to them) the tradition of the Church is.
I still would much rather call myself an atheist, it is a stronger view.
Actually, what I wrote was that classical history and literature (philosophy included) was my specialty (as much as a compulsive generalist like me can have a specialty): Herodotus, Homer, Aristotle, etc.
I am, however a big fan of the medieval era. But my main interest is in the Catholic west (which Juan probably thinks makes me a crypto-papist), and not so much the Byzantine east. So I’m not familiar with that work. I’ve read Sailing from Byzantium by Colin Wells, however, and I can recommend that. Although, since it’s not an economic history, it might not be the kind of thing you’re looking for.
… Which you can prove?
To me it’s obvious that you first need to have faith in something that can not be proven, and based on this you then can learn and know many other things. Some things we know from inner conviction, others by convention. And of course we can also come to know certain things via our senses, but we have to believe that what we sense is actually giving us some valid information about the real world.
It certainly is, it seems that you have no comprehension of what “Faith” is, merely a knowledge of a set of strawmen.
I love how you often take away my reasons, and merely leave my assertions, and then proceed to argue against my assertion with another assertion of your own. The question of the existence of God is question that involves every individual for it is a decision that cannot be avoided for the simply avoidance of it is an answer all of its own. Not only do the theists deal with the question of God, but also the atheists, and the agnostics - to simply state that the problem of the existence of God is simply a problem for those who already believe in His existence is a sorry excuse for philosophy seeing that it is one of the key problems of philosophy per se. I highly suggest that you read William James’ “The Will to Believe”. Again, you are merely arguing by assertion.
Again, you cannot explain why it is, you just dismiss it by another assertion. However, the fact is is that I have no true knowledge of whether you exist by the mere fact that I see a post by “Knight_of_BAAWA” for it could very well just be a product of my mind. Instead, I have faith in reality, and the existence of other intelligences that lead me to the conclusio that you exist.
Furthermore, there is no contradiction in me arguing with you, and the position that you are nothing but a figment of my mind for, seeing that I cannot control your actions you are obviously a creation with respect to which I have no conscious control, I am arguing against a position over which I have no control, hence there is no reason why I should not argue.
First you must prove that a chemical imbalance would change anything for Cartesian dualism is the most sensible position until it is proven that chemical imbalances in the brain changes the state of the mind. The reason for that is really the only method of arguing against Cartesian dualism is through psychology, without psychology, it is the strongest philosophical idea of what the mind is.
No, I certainly do not, it is the duty of the materialist to prove that everything can be broken down into material processes for there is no reason to otherwise believe that otherwise everything could simply be broken down matter. In fact, if materialism is true, then it would thus follow that a deaf
This is becoming whoever disagrees with BAAWA not only has the onus of proof, but also must argue against simple assertions.
Being banned would be a figment of his imagination. haha.
Of course he can’t. Belief doesn’t spring from reason it springs from bayesian inference. You can make logical statements after you have made bayesian inferences about the world. Learn the difference:
A = A
can I prove that who exists?
False. That you are so intellectually dishonest as to equate rational trust with faith is not my problem. That you wish to make faith into some epistemic method is not my problem. That you are incapable of grasping that faith is belief without or in spite of reason is not my problem.
You had none; you merely had mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to justify your initial lack of thought
There is no question regarding the existence of that which necessarily cannot exist. To say that there is would be to say that there is a question as to whether or not married bachelors exist.
Please stop arguing by assertion.
It has been explained. That you are being dishonest is not my problem.
Yes, there is. You admit that I exist by arguing with me, for arguing with me means that you believe you can change my mind. That is not possible if I am a figment of your imagination, since you can simply change me at will.
Learn about logical and metaphysical necessities.
Given that medical science already has…
And no–Cartesian dualism isn’t even sensible on the face of it, as any lobotomy patient will demonstrate.
Game. Set. Match.
Yes, you do. You are the existentially positive claimant. You have the onus of proof. You say that the immaterial exists. You prove it. Trying to shift the burden of proof is a fallacy.
This is becoming whoever disagrees with laminustacitus not only has the onus of proof, but also must argue against blatant assertions and fallacies.
Testimony is evidence isn’t it? Even if we would like there to be other evidence to be more sure of our understanding of what happened how can we deny human observation as evidence. In fact most of the other evidence of which you speak is usually not enough without the human observation to satisfy most people.
If you have experienced something and the only evidence event is your experience does that mean it didn’t happen? Even if you could not prove to the satisfaction of others would you then disbelieve what you experienced? Religious people are just telling you their story based on their own experiences.
No, in fact credibility is based on individual perception so you can not claim for me what is credible. You can claim for yourself but not for anyone else. There might be general agreement about what is credible but that is not the same. Some people believe OJ and some people don’t.
If people are communicating with God why should they be unwilling to say so as you are implying? What is wrong with people sharing their experiences? What difference does it make whether or not you believe them? Religious people are not claiming God exists, they know it for a fact because they have experienced it with their own senses. With the same senses that you experience other things some people have experienced God or other supernatural events.
People who are atheists are making the claim that they know God does not exist. If all you are saying is I don’t know how to explain the experiences that religious people are describing or the supernatural events that occur then that is of course reasonable.
Not all atheists make that claim. In fact, one need not make any claims wrt god and can be an atheist.
Of course, any disagreement with that wil lead to the etymological breakdown of the word “atheism” being provided.
I don’t need to. You need to prove that jesus existed and that the whole christianity thing is not a political scam (theocracy). While you are at it, maybe you should prove that all other revealed religions are not scams either. Or maybe you could explain why your particular brand of revealed religion is the correct and all the rest are wrong ?
Such as ? If you want to go that route, you could say that you make some assumptions that can’t be proven, but that’s not faith.
Believe it? I don’t think that’s the proper word. You can either be a consistent skeptic or else you can make reasonable assumptions, if you want to call them so. I ‘assume’ the world exists. It’s the most reasonable position, and faith does not enter the picture.
Of course, I imagine that what theists want to do is pretend that ultimately everything is based on faith so that their fairy tales are no different than reasonable discourse…but they are not.
There is no difference between faith, and rational trust; while you can create a new word to describe the faith you have in order to feel superior over those who willingly admit they have faith, but all it does is illustrate you have never bothered to probe into the meaning of “Faith”. Faith is nothing but trust - that is all it is, trust. There is a reason why The Divine Mercy image has “Jesus, I trust in you” on the bottom.
This is all just white noise without a simple reason for why your “Rational trust” is different from “Faith”; in fact, you have not given one reason as of yet for why the two are different.
Again, all you can do BAAWA is insult - I wonder why. Every single on of your posts are venom against whomever you are posting against, no sensibility, just blind anger.
God can exist, and God does exist. There is absolutely no reason your feeble mind could possible create why God does not exist.
You always love to cut away my reasoning from my posts, so this is nothing but a strawman against me.
Assertion with insult, classic BAAWA style.
There is no way in hell I’m changing your mind, BAAWA, I know that as I begun this debate. I’m defending the truth, to defend the truth does no require any hope as to convincing one’s audience. I am content to be the vox vocans in deserto.
Just because you are a figment of my imagination does not mean that I can change you at will, it could very well be a part of my mind that I cannot control.
Don’t give yourself credit, I just destroyed your argument against idealism in two sentences.
There is no question regarding the existence of that which necessarily cannot exist. To say that there is would be to say that there is a question as to whether or not married bachelors exist.
Please stop arguing by assertion.
It has been explained. That you are being dishonest is not my problem.
Yes, there is. You admit that I exist by arguing with me, for arguing with me means that you believe you can change my mind. That is not possible if I am a figment of your imagination, since you can simply change me at will.
Learn about logical and metaphysical necessities.
Yes, but you see I could very well be one of those people who take absolutely nothing on faith; hence, I need you to rationally explain everything here because everything must be rationally proven, nothing can be taken on faith. (Of course, unless you admit that you have faith in believing the authority of the medical science in this example.)
Actually, a lobotomy patient has nothing to do with Descartes’ proofs as to the duality of mind, and body. For Descartes, the mind is a different substance from the body because it is indivisible while the body itself is divisible. A lobotomy patient just proves that there is a correlation between the mind, and body - not that they are one, and the same.
And you’re not making an existentially positive claim?!
An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe in God.
An atheist is someone who makes the claim that God does not exist!
Let’s use english: atheism n. the theory of belief that God does not exist. atheist n. atheistic adj. atheisticaly adv.
Well, Knight_of_BAAWA, I’m simply not going to continue this. Arguing with you is like arguing against a wall that proceeds to give an assertion along with an insult. Never do you substantiate claims, nor can you ever speak civilly. Claim victory, if you so desire, because, veritas vincit omnem.
Hey. I am just wondering out of curiosity what your opinion is regarding Descartes’ proofs concerning the duality of mind and body. Do you think Descartes was correct? I am referring to when Descartes used the method of hyperbolic doubt to arrive at the conclusion that he has a mind which is separate from the body.
Descartes’ proof that the mind is different from the body because the mind is indivisible while the body is not is, in my opinion, close to unassailable on its own terms until the development of modern psychology. However, I do not believe that it is enough proof to conclude mind-body dualism, though, because I do not know if that rational proof is enough to conclude that the two are actually different, or if one is deceiving oneself with pretty rationalism.
However, I do believe that it is a basic fact about the world that there is mind, and matter.
Yes, there is. Faith is belief without reason or in spite of it. Rational trust actually has reason. You might want to note the difference and stop trying to bring reality down to the level of faith.
Except that I have. Many times. Why not try being honest for a change, rather than being all pouty because I won’t let you have your “faith as an epistemic method” bull?
I haven’t insulted you. I wonder why you must resort to lies.
Then square circles and married bachelors can and do exist. Interesting to see how you believe there can be contradictions. Do you also believe that it can be raining and not raining at the same time and place?
Nice insult, hypocrite.
What reasoning?
Awwww, are you pouting again? Seriously: how is calling you what you are being (dishonest) insulting to you? How is telling you what you are an insult? Explain that. Now. Or stop your damned pouting. Recall: facts are not insults.
But by arguing with me, you admit that it is a possibility. You admit that I exist and have my own set of beliefs that I can argue. Further, the entire point of argumentation is to present sets of ideas for consideration and the convincing of the other party/ies.
Now I know that you have a problem with this very Hoppe-esque line. That’s not my problem, though.
No, you’re simply bloviating and attempting to excuse your intellectual laziness.
Yes, it does. If you imagined me, you can un-imagine me. It’s quite simple.
Actually, you didn’t. But your false bravado and braggadocio does make me chuckle.
I’m not. Please stop lying.
Fine. Now you need to kill your strawman about faith, since faith isn’t rational trust. Of course, if you wish to be a religious skeptic–why not doubt your own existence? Go on, hypocrite.
Everything to do with this, since destroying part of the brain will change the personality, thus proving that the mind/body dichotomy of Descartes is false.
No. You’re the one claiming that the immaterial does, in fact, ontologically exist (rather than simply conceptually). If you believe that I am saying that the material exists, and you desire proof—how is it that you’re typing, again? Isn’t that keyboard…material?
No go hide in the corner and sulk because I won’t let you have your faith-as-an-epistemic-method.
And atheism:
a + theos + ism
lacking/without the belief that there is a god. And that’s English.
IOW: no claim
QED
Try again, kid.