Faith, not reason.

Juan:

Yeah, when you are a positivist troll, all your 'arguments' reduce to asking what the meaning of 'meaning' is.

How does clarifying definitions make one a positivist?

I think Juan has a random insult generator loaded with the terms "positivist", "skeptic", "amoralist", "Stirnerite", "Church of Hume", "theist", and everything else he doesn't understand, yet professes to hate, and he just fires off whatever happens to come out.

(granting he existed, which he didn't)

Do you really want to stand by this?  Without going into any detail for the moment  I will say I usually assume most people making comments like this are either amazing cutting edge scholars, or dogmatists with a most likely inconsistent view of history.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

Yeah--it's best that you tuck tail and run, little boy.

OK, well, now you're just begging the question.

Except not. Go back to Logic 101, Giles.

laminustacitus:

Rational trust is faith, BAAWA

No, it most certainly is NOT. Don't create neologisms just to suit your fantasy world.

 

GilesStratton:

Woah, what? I guess we'd better write a whole bunch of psychological conditions off the books as nonsense then. Because, you know, Nash was seeing real people after all. (Interestingly, I heard the in "The Beautiful Mind" the way his illness was depicted was actually less dramatic than it actually was).

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

laminustacitus:

Because the mind is nothing but a phenomena that can be fully reduced to materialist explanations - you have the onus of proof here.

False. Giles has the onus of proof to show that there is no distinction between a chemical imbalance and no chemical imbalance. Giles has screwed himself over by denying the linguistic basis of certain terms. And then you have the onus of proving that there is such a thing as the immaterial.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Except not. Go back to Logic 101, Giles.

To summarize the debate so far:

Giles:

I'm skeptical about the existence of you and every other member of this fora. I'm thinking that it could just be that I'm or something like that.

Could you prove to me that you do, indeed, exist?

BAAWA:

Well, look at it this way. We know that people who are crazy have chemical imbalances. Now, I just did a scan of your brain and look, it looks exactly the same as mine! Since I know I'm not crazy, it follows logically that you aren't either!

Now, if you're not crazy and you're seeing me I must exist.

Right, and you didn't beg the question.

laminustacitus:

Spideynw:

I don't know what "justified true belief" is, so I cannot comment on it.

You really need to work on that before you ever speak on faith, and reason again.

Ah, so you don't really have an argument.  I see.  (Hint: you might try providing an example of what you mean, so I can tear it apart, but obviously you are too scared to do so).

Spideynw:

But, would you believe in unicorns if I told you they exist? 

Would you believe a person in whom you have a great deal of confidence if they said they saw a unicorn? Would you believe them if they said they saw a ghost?

What we are discussing is when the only evidence of something is the eyewitness accounts of other people. You want to call believing eyewitness testimony an act of faith and not based on reason.

If eyewitness testimony of something is an act of faith then we have to say all eyewitness testimony even the mundane is an act of faith. Since about 99% of everything we do is based on what other people tell us is happening to some extent then your entire life is based on faith by your own definition.

One other point, researching the bible has no real relationship to whether you believe in the existence of God or not. You can research the bible and be an atheist and never read the bible and be a firm believer.

 

Maxliberty:

Would you believe a person in whom you have a great deal of confidence if they said they saw a unicorn?

I would believe they thought they saw a unicorn.  I would still not believe in unicorns.

Maxliberty:

Would you believe them if they said they saw a ghost?

I would believe they thought they saw a ghost.  I myself would still not believe in ghosts.

Maxliberty:

What we are discussing is when the only evidence of something is the eyewitness accounts of other people. You want to call believing eyewitness testimony an act of faith and not based on reason.

When it has to do with the fantastical, yes.

Maxliberty:

If eyewitness testimony of something is an act of faith then we have to say all eyewitness testimony even the mundane is an act of faith.

If the only evidence is a testimony, then yes.  It has been shown quite a number of times when people are convicted by testimony alone, that later on they are vindicated because the testimony was false.  I wonder why most scientists are not religious?  Maybe because the supernatural is not reproducible?

Maxliberty:

Since about 99% of everything we do is based on what other people tell us is happening to some extent then your entire life is based on faith by your own definition.

95% of statistics are made up on the spot.  Regardless, reason is based on consistency.  Your statement just makes the claim that there is no truth.  As such, you have to believe everyone that makes the claim.  Meaning you would need to practice being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/any other religion on the planet.  Because all you have is your witnesses vs. their witnesses.  And your witnesses are no more credible than their witnesses.

I think Juan has a random insult generator loaded with the terms "positivist", "skeptic", "amoralist", "Stirnerite", "Church of Hume", "theist", and everything else he doesn't understand, yet professes to hate, and he just fires off whatever happens to come out.

Lilburne, my dear all-powerful moderator : As far as I can tell none of these words are insults. Maybe you don't understand what they mean, that's why you regard them as insults. However given that all 'values' are 'subjective', I don't really see what the issue is. Except that your amoralist non-theory of non-justice is ridiculed and you don't like it. But again, everything is just subjective preference.

Dondoolee:

Do you really want to stand by this? Without going into any detail for the moment I will say I usually assume most people making comments like this are either amazing cutting edge scholars, or dogmatists with a most likely inconsistent view of history.

The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity ... (1829)
By the way dondoolee, which church is it that you follow ? stirner's ? the pope's ? Or ?

So, except for parroting the lies of a few churches, do you think you have any proof to the existence of this guy jesus ? Or you just repeat what the mob says ?

Juan:

By the way dondoolee, which church is it that you follow ? stirner's ? the pope's ? Or ?

...and this time the JRIG (Juan's Random Insult Generator) happened to spit out "Stirnerite" and "Papist"... at the same person.  But he doesn't care; anyone who disagrees with him must belong to a "church" of some kind!

Lilburne, really, you don't get it. And the fact that you seem to have some sort of working connection with papists clouds your judgment even more. What a pity.

Spideynw:

I would believe they thought they saw a unicorn.  I would still not believe in unicorns.

Would you think they were ill because since they had witnessed a unicorn that they now believed in unicorns? Would you expect them not to believe in unicorns even though they have seen one?

Same questions for ghosts.

What if the person said they saw a rainbow? Would you believe them?

 

What you are really saying is that you have to see it to believe it, someone else telling the story.

Spideynw:

Maxliberty:

What we are discussing is when the only evidence of something is the eyewitness accounts of other people. You want to call believing eyewitness testimony an act of faith and not based on reason.

When it has to do with the fantastical, yes.

Fantastical as determined by you. The universe is a really big place, do you think you can really have a grasp on what is possible in the universe? You find the existence of God fantastic and I find it quite ordinary. 

For example, your friend says hey I saw a ghost. You say no you didn't. Your friend says I know what I saw and I was there when it happened. You say that you know for a fact that it was not a ghost. Your friend says how do you know when you weren't there and have no information on what I saw.....and your response is?

Spideynw:

Your statement just makes the claim that there is no truth. 

I am not saying there is not truth. I am saying that I can't universally not believe what people say just because the only evidence is their testimony.

Spideynw:

Meaning you would need to practice being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/any other religion on the planet.  Because all you have is your witnesses vs. their witnesses.  And your witnesses are no more credible than their witnesses.

Why should I be forced to believe everyone equally? I am not suggesting you do that. I am suggesting that eyewitness testimony can not simply be discounted solely because the subject is deemed as fantastical in your mind. Why not rationally think of what people are describing and either coming to a conclusion on the evidence you do have or simply stating that it seems unexplainable with the current evidence and what we currently understand of how the world works. Is that really that hard to admit you do not have perfect knowledge of the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxliberty:

Would you think they were ill because since they had witnessed a unicorn that they now believed in unicorns?

Not necessarily.

Maxliberty:

Would you expect them not to believe in unicorns even though they have seen one?

No.  But again, he  believes he saw one.  There is no way to verify that he did.

Maxliberty:

What if the person said they saw a rainbow? Would you believe them?

Of course.  I have seen them.

Maxliberty:

What you are really saying is that you have to see it to believe it, someone else telling the story.

No, I am saying there has to be more evidence than just a witness.  Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence.  Otherwise, who do you believe?  Which "witness" is telling the truth?  Or is God just so crazy that she told a bunch of different people a bunch of different things?

Maxliberty:

Fantastical as determined by you.

Supernatural is what I am talking about.

Maxliberty:

The universe is a really big place, do you think you can really have a grasp on what is possible in the universe?

Again, I do not deny that unicorns exist or that God has talked with man.  I am just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that God has talked with man or that unicorns exist.  And until there is sufficient evidence to suggest that such is the case, I will not believe they do.

Maxliberty:

You find the existence of God fantastic and I find it quite ordinary. 

I find the idea of a supernatural God to be fantastic, because there is no evidence, outside of other people's testimony, that such is the case.  Again, if you believe God talks to man, which religion do you believe in?  The Catholic religion, the Mormon religion, the Hindu religion, the Buddhist religion, the Muslim religion, or some other religion?  They all have equal validity, if witness is a valid proof of truth, and since all they can provide as evidence is witnesses.

Maxliberty:

For example, your friend says hey I saw a ghost. You say no you didn't. Your friend says I know what I saw and I was there when it happened. You say that you know for a fact that it was not a ghost. Your friend says how do you know when you weren't there and have no information on what I saw.....and your response is?

If my friend said he saw a ghost, I would say, OK, that is fine if that is what you want to believe you saw.  But until you provide more evidence besides your testimony, I am not going to believe in ghosts.

Maxliberty:

I am not saying there is not truth. I am saying that I can't universally not believe what people say just because the only evidence is their testimony.

Then, again, you have to believe what everyone tells you.   Which means you have to believe in every religion on earth, which means you don't know what is truth.  Because they have glaring differences in teachings.

Maxliberty:

Why should I be forced to believe everyone equally?

Because they are all just as credible, since the only proof they provide that their beliefs are true are testimonies.

Maxliberty:

Is that really that hard to admit you do not have perfect knowledge of the universe?

Of course I do not have perfect knowledge of the universe.  I am not claiming that I do.  That would be a straw man.  I am claiming that the burden of proof for a claim, is on the person making the claim, and that their word that it is true is not enough.  I am also claiming, that the bigger the claim, the bigger the burden of proof.  If someone told me that they saw a pea on the ground, I would probably take their claim at face value (I know peas exist, I know gravity occurs, and as such there could be a pea on the ground).  However, if someone tells me that there is a life after death, and that I have to change my life drastically to live according to some rules so I can live happily ever after, including giving some of my money to an organization, then would you not agree that there is a massive burden of proof on the person making that claim?

Spideynw:

Of course.  I have seen them.

This is what it comes down to you for you, you have to see it yourself but you only want to make this a criteria on claims you think are fantastic however you define that.

Spideynw:

Then, again, you have to believe what everyone tells you.   Which means you have to believe in every religion on earth, which means you don't know what is truth.  Because they have glaring differences in teachings.

There is no requirement that I believe everything everybody says. However, I do believe some things some people say so I can not make the claim that you are making which is that all events based on human testimony are inherently false. There is a disconnect between what you say you do and what you actually do. Of course you believe people's stories about all kinds of stuff you don't deem fantastic or you have experienced yourself.

Spideynw:

Because they are all just as credible, since the only proof they provide that their beliefs are true are testimonies.

Where did I say every witness has equal credibility? Unlike you, I don't start with the assumption that all witnesses are wrong that doesn't mean I have to believe them all.

Spideynw:

I am claiming that the burden of proof for a claim, is on the person making the claim, and that their word that it is true is not enough.

What the point atheists always miss is that no one is trying to get you to believe in God or prove god exists. It is you that is making the positive claim that you know for a fact that God or anything else supernatural (whatever that means) does not exist. 

If you choose not to believe people, fine, but where you fail is when you say that what other people experienced you are certain did not happen.

 

Juan:

The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity ... (1829)

 

Wonderful, you have cited a book that, while influential, was published before the advent of modern archaeology and put out almost 200 years ago.  This is before the discovery of Troy, The Hittite Empire, etc.

While I will not say Jesus existed, I would be somewhat surprised if he was 100 percent an invention.  Tell me do you believe there was no Zarathustra, Socrates, Odysseus, King Arthur, etc as well? Have you ever bothered to care, or only cared to the extent to it affecting you still being able to say Jesus didn’t exist?  If there was a Sumerian King who was named only once, and it was on the Sumerian King List, and his name occurred fairly late on the list would you give him the benefit of the doubt of existing? Do you usually think that mythological figures are usually based off some historical person to some degree?

I think you may far too concerned with my personal views (such as liking Stirner) to really care about any debate.  I hate the color green too, does that really change your opinion of me when talking about mythology, is my taste in color too distracting for you to focus on mythological figures?

I also think you hate Xtianity too much to be intellectual honest.

 

Shut up and get back to the Stirner Church! 10 Our Humes for the blasphemy!

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 Except not. Go back to Logic 101, Giles.

Giles:

I'm skeptical about the existence of you and every other member of this fora. I'm thinking that it could just be that I'm or something like that.

Could you prove to me that you do, indeed, exist?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Well, look at it this way. If I didn't exist, why are you asking me if I do exist? Why are you able to communicate with me? In order to communicate with me, you must have certainly logical and metaphysical necessities. Failure to recognize them by denying my existence is called the stolen concept fallacy

 

Mani (216-276 AD): Founder of Manichaeism.  Flourished mostly in Mesopotamia and Persia.

 

Plotinus (203-277AD): Founder of Neoplatonism, had only 1 biographer (Porphyre)

 

Marcion of Sinope (130ish AD):  Founder of a Gnosticish type of religion, known of today through primarily Xtian theological texts.

 

All these men founded spiritual movements around the same time era, and have little primary documents that are known of outside of their disciples and perhaps Christian theologians, showing that the person existed, yet most believe they probably did.

 

 

 

A critical point must be made about the Christian sources:  In the end Christianity was the religion and a tradition that survived, which means it has a greater number of preserved texts, so it is easy to see why we have Xtian documents as outside sources, rather than ancient failed empires or failed religions commenting on Christians .

 

Jesus’ Time:

Writings about Jesus from his followers date back to most likely 50 ADish

 

Few would deny that the oldest communities to worship Jesus were Jews.  And the 1^st known writings were EPISTLES (which are the earliest known writings), which means they were written to already practicing communities in the year fifty.  So someone with a very limited time frame had to make a big enough impact in a small and strongly culturally united area.  Not only that, he had to make a big enough impact to a group of people that were very united by their religion.  It could have been Peter or Paul doing this I suppose, but there is no reason to assume it.

 

The Texts name Historical names (Caiaphas, Theudas, Pontius Pilate, etc)

-          Some of the historical sources the New Testament names are named matter-of-factly by ancient historians (such as Josephus) when talking of Jesus, as in it didn’t seem illogical to the historian to associate the name with Jesus

-          I will grant you that there probably is an inserted and tampered with part in the Josephus text that se, and I will grant you that the roman historians who mention Jesus are second hand sources.  The point still stands though, unbiased men in a time closer to Jesus showed no signs of thinking him as a hoax.

 

Is there a slam dunk case Jesus existed? No.  However, there exists a great deal of ancient historical figures and with less evidence of existing than Jesus that people accept as real (and not just religious figures).  There do exist some plausible narratives to show how Jesus may not have lived, but they are mostly speculation, interesting maybe, but speculative.  In methods that are better testable; such as looking at the cultures involved, religions at the time of Jesus, the nature of Mediterranean and Near Eastern mythology, ancient documentation, and traditions at this point in time taking a strong stance that Jesus did not exist seems a bit dogmatic.

 

 

GilesStratton:

I'm skeptical about the existence of you and every other member of this fora. I'm thinking that it could just be that I'm or something like that.

Could you prove to me that you do, indeed, exist?

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.

 

 

 

@Lilburne

 

Way off topic:

I think I recall you mentioning you specialized in Medieval history.  Do you know anything of this book?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-History-Byzantium-Vol-Set/dp/088402332X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254204018&sr=1-1

 

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

 

Maxliberty:

Spideynw:

Of course.  I have seen them.

This is what it comes down to you for you, you have to see it yourself but you only want to make this a criteria on claims you think are fantastic however you define that.

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.

Maxliberty:

Spideynw:

Then, again, you have to believe what everyone tells you.   Which means you have to believe in every religion on earth, which means you don't know what is truth.  Because they have glaring differences in teachings.

There is no requirement that I believe everything everybody says.

If you think that testimony is sufficient evidence, then yes you do.  Otherwise you are being inconsistent.

Maxliberty:

However, I do believe some things some people say

And what do you base your belief on?

Maxliberty:

Spideynw:

Because they are all just as credible, since the only proof they provide that their beliefs are true are testimonies.

Where did I say every witness has equal credibility? Unlike you, I don't start with the assumption that all witnesses are wrong that doesn't mean I have to believe them all.

I did not say you made that claim.  But the fact is, they all do have equal credibility.

Maxliberty:

Spideynw:

I am claiming that the burden of proof for a claim, is on the person making the claim, and that their word that it is true is not enough.

What the point atheists always miss is that no one is trying to get you to believe in God or prove god exists.

I am a deist, not an atheist. 

Maxliberty:

It is you that is making the positive claim that you know for a fact that God or anything else supernatural (whatever that means) does not exist.

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.

Maxliberty:

If you choose not to believe people, fine, but where you fail is when you say that what other people experienced you are certain did not happen.

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.

Dondoolee:

@Lilburne

 

Way off topic:

I think I recall you mentioning you specialized in Medieval history. 

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.

Juan:

One cannot rationally prove that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead.

Actually, what one can't do is prove that Jesus rose from the dead (granting he existed, which he didn't).

... 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.

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

Rational trust is faith, BAAWA

No, it most certainly is NOT.

It certainly is, it seems that you have no comprehension of what "Faith" is, merely a knowledge of a set of strawmen.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 

laminustacitus:

No, Juan, what I am saying is that human reason has a limit, and that a basic result of that is that many of our ethical, moral, and religious beliefs must be founded on faith. The atheist has faith that God does not exist just as a Christian believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on Easter.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

False. We have as much faith that there is no god as we have faith that there are no square circles and married bachelors. That you are incapable of understanding that is YOUR problem and YOUR problem alone.

laminustacitus:

It is not  merely MY problem

Yes, it certainly is. That you are incapable of grasping such incurs nothing upon me.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The mere fact that you asked and posted demonstrates your existence.

laminustacitus:

No

Yes. Solipsism is a mental masturbatory dead-end.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

GilesStratton:

Woah, what? I guess we'd better write a whole bunch of psychological conditions off the books as nonsense then. Because, you know, Nash was seeing real people after all. (Interestingly, I heard the in "The Beautiful Mind" the way his illness was depicted was actually less dramatic than it actually was).

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

laminustacitus:

Because the mind is nothing but a phenomena that can be fully reduced to materialist explanations - you have the onus of proof here.

False. Giles has the onus of proof to show that there is no distinction between a chemical imbalance and no chemical imbalance.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And then you have the onus of proving that there is such a thing as the immaterial.

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.

liberty student:

So tempting.

Being banned would be a figment of his imagination. haha.

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

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:

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

A = A

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

can I prove that who exists?

laminustacitus:

Rational trust is faith, BAAWA

Knight_of_BAAWA:

No, it most certainly is NOT.

laminustacitus:

It certainly is, it seems that you have no comprehension of what "Faith" is, merely a knowledge of a set of strawmen.

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.

 

 

laminustacitus:

No, Juan, what I am saying is that human reason has a limit, and that a basic result of that is that many of our ethical, moral, and religious beliefs must be founded on faith. The atheist has faith that God does not exist just as a Christian believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on Easter.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

False. We have as much faith that there is no god as we have faith that there are no square circles and married bachelors. That you are incapable of understanding that is YOUR problem and YOUR problem alone.

laminustacitus:

It is not  merely MY problem

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Yes, it certainly is. That you are incapable of grasping such incurs nothing upon me.

 

laminustacitus:

I love how you often take away my reasons

You had none; you merely had mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to justify your initial lack of thought

 

laminustacitus:

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.

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. 

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The mere fact that you asked and posted demonstrates your existence.

laminustacitus:

No

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Yes. Solipsism is a mental masturbatory dead-end.

laminustacitus:

Again

It has been explained. That you are being dishonest is not my problem.

laminustacitus:

Furthermore, there is no contradiction in me arguing with you, and the position that you are nothing but a figment of my mind

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.

 

 

GilesStratton:

Woah, what? I guess we'd better write a whole bunch of psychological conditions off the books as nonsense then. Because, you know, Nash was seeing real people after all. (Interestingly, I heard the in "The Beautiful Mind" the way his illness was depicted was actually less dramatic than it actually was).

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

laminustacitus:

Because the mind is nothing but a phenomena that can be fully reduced to materialist explanations - you have the onus of proof here.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

False. Giles has the onus of proof to show that there is no distinction between a chemical imbalance and no chemical imbalance.

laminustacitus:

First you must prove that a chemical imbalance would change anything

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And then you have the onus of proving that there is such a thing as the immaterial.

laminustacitus:

No

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.

Spideynw:

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. 

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.

 

Spideynw:

I did not say you made that claim.  But the fact is, they all do have equal credibility.

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.  

Spideynw:

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.

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.

Spideynw:

No, I am not certain it did not happen.  I just have not seen any evidence to suggest it really did.

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.

 

Maxliberty:

People who are atheists are making the claim that they know God does not exist.

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.

 

Torsten:

... Which you can prove?

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 ?

To me it's obvious that you first need to have faith in something that can not be proven,

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.

but we have to believe that what we sense is actually giving us some valid information about the real world.

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.

Juan:

To me it's obvious that you first need to have faith in something that can not be proven,

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

Rational trust is faith, BAAWA

Knight_of_BAAWA:

No, it most certainly is NOT.

laminustacitus:

It certainly is, it seems that you have no comprehension of what "Faith" is, merely a knowledge of a set of strawmen.

False. That you are so intellectually dishonest as to equate rational trust with faith is not my problem.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 

laminustacitus:

No, Juan, what I am saying is that human reason has a limit, and that a basic result of that is that many of our ethical, moral, and religious beliefs must be founded on faith. The atheist has faith that God does not exist just as a Christian believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on Easter.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

False. We have as much faith that there is no god as we have faith that there are no square circles and married bachelors. That you are incapable of understanding that is YOUR problem and YOUR problem alone.

laminustacitus:

It is not  merely MY problem

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Yes, it certainly is. That you are incapable of grasping such incurs nothing upon me.

 

laminustacitus:

I love how you often take away my reasons

You had none; you merely had mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to justify your initial lack of thought

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

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.

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.

God can exist, and God does exist. There is absolutely no reason your feeble mind could possible create why God does not exist. 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Please stop arguing by assertion. 

You always love to cut away my reasoning from my posts, so this is nothing but a strawman against me.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The mere fact that you asked and posted demonstrates your existence.

laminustacitus:

No

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Yes. Solipsism is a mental masturbatory dead-end.

laminustacitus:

Again

It has been explained. That you are being dishonest is not my problem.

Assertion with insult, classic BAAWA style.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

Furthermore, there is no contradiction in me arguing with you, and the position that you are nothing but a figment of my mind

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.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 That is not possible if I am a figment of your imagination, since you can simply change me at will. 

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Learn about logical and metaphysical necessities.

Don't give yourself credit, I just destroyed your argument against idealism in two sentences.

 

 

 

laminustacitus:

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.

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. 

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The mere fact that you asked and posted demonstrates your existence.

laminustacitus:

No

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Yes. Solipsism is a mental masturbatory dead-end.

laminustacitus:

Again

It has been explained. That you are being dishonest is not my problem.

laminustacitus:

Furthermore, there is no contradiction in me arguing with you, and the position that you are nothing but a figment of my mind

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 

GilesStratton:

Woah, what? I guess we'd better write a whole bunch of psychological conditions off the books as nonsense then. Because, you know, Nash was seeing real people after all. (Interestingly, I heard the in "The Beautiful Mind" the way his illness was depicted was actually less dramatic than it actually was).

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

laminustacitus:

Because the mind is nothing but a phenomena that can be fully reduced to materialist explanations - you have the onus of proof here.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

False. Giles has the onus of proof to show that there is no distinction between a chemical imbalance and no chemical imbalance.

laminustacitus:

First you must prove that a chemical imbalance would change anything

Given that medical science already has......

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.)

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And no--Cartesian dualism isn't even sensible on the face of it, as any lobotomy patient will demonstrate.

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.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And then you have the onus of proving that there is such a thing as the immaterial.

laminustacitus:

No

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. 

And you're not making an existentially positive claim?! 

 

 

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.

 

laminustacitus:

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.

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.

Eric:

laminustacitus:

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.

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.

laminustacitus:

There is no difference between faith, and rational trust

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

laminustacitus:

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.

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?

laminustacitus:

Again, all you can do BAAWA is insult

I haven't insulted you. I wonder why you must resort to lies.

laminustacitus:

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

laminustacitus:

God can exist, and God does exist.

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?

laminustacitus:

There is absolutely no reason your feeble mind could possible create why God does not exist.

Nice insult, hypocrite.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Please stop arguing by assertion.

laminustacitus:

You always love to cut away my reasoning from my posts

What reasoning?

Physiocrat:

Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The mere fact that you asked and posted demonstrates your existence.

laminustacitus:

No

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Yes. Solipsism is a mental masturbatory dead-end.

laminustacitus:

Again

Knight_of_BAAWA:

It has been explained. That you are being dishonest is not my problem.

laminustacitus:

Assertion with insult, classic BAAWA style.

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.

laminustacitus:

Furthermore, there is no contradiction in me arguing with you, and the position that you are nothing but a figment of my mind

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

laminustacitus:

There is no way in hell I'm changing your mind, BAAWA

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.

laminustacitus:

I know that as I begun this debate. I'm defending the truth

No, you're simply bloviating and attempting to excuse your intellectual laziness.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

That is not possible if I am a figment of your imagination, since you can simply change me at will.

laminustacitus:

Just because you are a figment of my imagination does not mean that I can change you at will

Yes, it does. If you imagined me, you can un-imagine me. It's quite simple.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Learn about logical and metaphysical necessities.

laminustacitus:

Don't give yourself credit, I just destroyed your argument against idealism in two sentences.

Actually, you didn't. But your false bravado and braggadocio does make me chuckle.

laminustacitus:

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

laminustacitus:

Please stop arguing by assertion.

I'm not. Please stop lying.

laminustacitus:

First you must prove that a chemical imbalance would change anything

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Given that medical science already has......

laminustacitus:

Yes, but you see I could very well be one of those people who take absolutely nothing on faith

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And no--Cartesian dualism isn't even sensible on the face of it, as any lobotomy patient will demonstrate.

laminustacitus:

Actually, a lobotomy patient has

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And then you have the onus of proving that there is such a thing as the immaterial.

laminustacitus:

No

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

laminustacitus:

And you're not making an existentially positive claim?!

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.