Faith, not reason.

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.