ctrl y
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by ctrl y
-
-
Saying "open your eyes" to someone is a begging the question fallacy? I'm not even gonna ask you to define it. Just give me one example of something that isn't a begging the question fallacy, and we'll continue the conversation.
But I have a feeling you go around calling everything "begging the question".
Saying "open your eyes" to someone is not normally a begging the question fallacy (when you're trying to prove something mundane, like the claim that your house is a certain color), but it certainly is when you're arguing for the existence of the external world itself. A skeptic would obviously reply, "but how do you know it's an external world you're seeing?"
-
On what basis could sensory evidence be negated?
Just in a practical sense, if I get the whole internet,laptop,visual display, text thingy, then ultimately that view(sensory evidence is negatable) would have to mean that everything I 'see' is a projection(whatever the source) and that I am commenting to myself
There's nothing wrong with sensory evidence. What I was saying in that post is simply that not all beliefs have to be supported by sensory evidence. By analogy, pizza is good food, but not all good food is pizza.
-
To anyone who claims the plain evidence of the senses is bogus present the following challenge. Go to the top of the nearest tall building and jump off without a parachute. If the person is serious about what he says, then he will have no excuse for not accepting the challenge. If he is not serious and does not accept you can stop arguing it with him right there.
ruveyn1
That's not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though.
There's a minor difference between God and the external world. You can't see God every time you open your eyes.
That's not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though. The skeptic would deny that what you are seeing every time you open your eyes is indeed an external world.
-
It all goes back to what you can prove and how you prove it. You start out with the arbitrary assertion that God exists (as opposed to a Flying Spagetti Monster, or some other diety) and then you make inferences from there. I start with what I can directly sense and go from there. Why do you base your beleifs around what there is no evidence for (beyond sheer, raw feeling) instead of what there is evidence for?
So, is your skepticism applied consistently? Are you as skeptical about, say, the existence of the external world, as you are about the existence of God? The non-question-begging evidence for the existence of the external world is rather lacking. You know, Richard Rorty has compared the idea of an objective reality to the idea that God exists, and suggested that we should reject both as unsupportable superstitions.
-
When I look at a majestic landscape, I feel what Sam Harris calls, "a sense of the numinous." I'd call it a mix wonder and benevolence when it's pleasant, and simple awe when it's not. Neither of these feelings imply a creator intelligence or divine will. Confusing the human capacity for this type of experience with a functional sensus divinitatus is a mistake. Bob can be rational and make simple mistakes, but it is a gross rationalization to conclude that there is a deity because mountains are pretty; that's not rational.
If God doesn't exist, then they are probably just feelings. That can be reversed, though: If God exists, then what you're calling "feelings" are probably the stirrings of the sensus divinitatis. Classifying it as a mere emotion with no deeper significance is what Paul called suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That may not be what's going on in your particular case, of course.
Anyway, I agree that Bob's belief in God will not be rational according to the atheist's set of rules of inference. I am saying that to impose those rules of inference on the theist, without some justification that is binding on the theist, is arbitrary intellectual imperialism. A theist will say that Bob's belief in God is not only rational, but one of the paradigm cases of rationality which any satisfactory set of inference rules must take into account. (And you should be able to see why a theist would think this - it is quite plausible to think that someone awestruck by the night sky could form a rational belief in a creator.)
-
How do you get to the conclusion that God exists without sensory evidence? All valid concepts are derived from sensory evidence and logical inference. Where else could they come from? Faith? Revalation?
It's not a "conclusion" properly speaking, but it comes from what Calvin called the sensus divinitatus. When Bob looks at, say, a mountain range or the night sky, Bob might spontaneously form a belief that God exists. There is neither sufficient sensory evidence nor a chain of inference supporting Bob's belief in God, so formed, but nevertheless he is rational to hold it.
-
Stolen Concept Fallacy. Where did you get the concept of God or belief from? You only know of these concepts by using your senses in the world. That is unless you claim your knowlege of these concepts came a priori, in which case the burden of proof is on you.
Okay, I acquired the concepts of "God" and "belief" by using my senses in the world. How do you get from there to the conclusion that a belief in God's existence has to be supported by sensory evidence?
-
Me – Reason is the means by which man navigates the world around him. The construct of reason originates with empirical evidence gathered by our senses. Man uses his senses to see the world around him and construct patterns based on what he sees. Through such observation, we have formulated logic through the law of identity (or non-contradiction), and its corollary, the law of causality.
You are asserting that all beliefs must be supported by sensory evidence, and rejecting the belief that God exists on that basis. So, why can't I do the reverse, and reject your assertion that all beliefs must be supported by sensory evidence on the basis of my belief that God exists? One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens, as they say.
-
So the typical bad ideas come out in response, materialism, idealism, skepticism, and a variety of forms of dualism.
Dualism is actually pretty tenable.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_files/General%20untechnical%20papers/Mind-Body%20Dualism.pdf
-
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/2009...ks-fountainhead
Wow. You just can't hate someone this intensely without hating yourself first.
Thanks for the link, Mister A.
I'd be interested in seeing somebody respond to what I saw as one of the main claims of the article. I interpret it thusly: "Students typically get their first serious reality check about their intelligence and ability in college, so they are particularly vulnerable to Rand's worldview, which allows them to have self esteem and a sense of certainty. As a byproduct of their adoption of Rand's worldview, they lose some creativity and, to some extent, the ability to think critically."
-
What percentage of Objectivists stay Objectivist after high school and college, do you figure? Is there any way to determine this?
Please enjoy the video below while pondering your response to my questions.
-
Uh... You can try here. I know it's from the 4AynRandFans forum, but it has some posts where Swinburne gets mentioned. I didn't read them, but at least they're not yours, so maybe... BTW, you should change the title of your thread, so other people don't come here expecting an actual argument for God, like I did.
Thanks for the link, but the Swinburne referred to in those posts appears to be a poet popular among Objectivists - distinct, of course, from the theologian Richard Swinburne.
Sorry about the title. I don't think I can change the title of the thread, since my ability to edit the OP has expired. Maybe a moderator could do that. (Mods, if you're there...?)
-
Sounds fair to me. If you'll agree to move on with me away from this mess we've both contributed to making, I'd gladly participate in a different thread about a specific claim or position of Swinburne's (provided we note the caveats from before). I must remind you if something similar happens in our hypothetical new thread you won't be seeing me.
Cool. I'm glad we got past that.
edited to add: Your link is to an index page with multiple links on it.My bad. The one I referred to is the second from the bottom, entitled "Response to Dawkins' The God Delusion."
-
Thanks for the reply, TLD.
I would say it does not fit anywhere here.
Read Rand and see that there is no room for such mysticism.
Or read other posts on religion that have likely covered what you need.
My argument based on my interpretation of the argument of Richard Swinburne in his trilogy The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason. I do not know of any passage in Rand that covered Swinburne's theology (or could be applied effectively to Swinburne's theology). Perhaps you, or another of the many learned members of this forum, could point me to such a passage in Rand. I'm surprised to hear that Rand refuted theism, since I have been referred to non-Objectivist authors a couple of times when I asked an Objectivist where I could find a refutation of the case for theism developed by Swinburne.
Likewise, I'm surprised to hear that Swinburne has been covered on this forum. But perhaps you could post a link to the thread in which the reasoning in Swinburne's trilogy was covered.
Edit: I did a search for "Swinburne" on this forum, and the results I got were posts that I have authored in the past. Of course, none of the posts that I wrote on Swinburne were refutations of his reasoning.
-
You state that like it happens all the time, yet no one here in this thread questioned your mental stability even. I've seen plenty of discussions on God, intrinsic value (one thread made by me even), and determinism, and most proceed fine. Annoyance only really comes in when important questions are outright ignored and evaded.
I agree with Chuff:
"(A satisfactory conclusion for me does not necessitate a "I'm wrong, you guys win" position. I hope that is clear. I would accept as a conclusion something like: "Well, I understand the side I am coming from and the side you are coming from, understand the arguments against it and the formulation of them, and still disagree about X, and am not wavering." Then the thread would be over.)"
I agree with the passage you quoted as well. Thanks for reposting it.
Your point that no one questioned my mental stability per se is conceded. I was a little loose in my formulation of my last post because I was frustrated with having someone psychologize me and then say that any future OPs I made should be ignored. A Christian should have thicker skin than that, though.
To digress a little, this is one of the things I like about Swinburne - his character comes through in his writing. For example, his response to Dawkins' blistering criticism of his work was very classy and diffident: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/framesetpdfs.shtml
-
I intend to make a sustained argument for the existence of a god on this forum. Would this go better in Metaphysics or Debates?
I ask because I understand that Debates allows posts that attempt to proselytize for different worldviews, but on the other hand I'm not sure if just presenting an argument for a god counts as proselytizing for a different worldview. Hence the question.
-
The OP seems to favor determinism (see this thread and this thread) (in spite of the fact that it dooms Christianity's central tenet of man's culpability for sin, since it makes man incapable of volition).
The OP also seems to need an "authority's" opinion on something in order to believe it (this thread betrays such thinking, as well as a fear of the Good). So in the case of this thread, it's so-and-so Christian philosopher's word against ours (which he wants to make us read). Nothing to do with the OP's mind or judgment. This case is precisely why we ought to reserve the right to say, "You know what? No. I'm not wasting my time."
I don't think it a dangerous prospect to ignore any further threads created by the OP, considering the incomprehensibility of this one combined with the severe lack of basic understanding and inexplicable accompanying stubbornness that are evident in this one.
My advice: Read the literature and understand for yourself. Questions, debate, reasoning, about a topic all go here.
Except that those threads are all between one and four years old.
Why is there so much psychologizing on this site? I've been to a number of forums, and I've never come across one where nobody can ask questions about determinism, intrinsic value, God, and so forth without having his mental stability questioned and his past posting history carefully dissected with a microscope. This isn't the first time someone's looked into my past posts, brought out all the threads where I disagreed with Objectivism, and used those threads to construct a bizarre unfalsifiable narrative, either. (I think it's the third time - and this time the culprit is a 20 year old kid, I see - he's probably qualified to diagnose my psychology, right?) Why not just let people make the arguments and ask the questions that interest them? Is there something about Objectivism that turns people into paranoid amateur psychologists?
-
My patience with the OP of this thread has worn thin.
chuff,
Okay. You're right. I didn't think the purpose of this thread through when I started it, nor did I completely think through some of the positions I've put forward. I'm going to stop wasting everyone's time now, admit defeat and leave the thread (unless a really good reason to return materializes).
I'm going to take a couple of days to study and gather my thoughts, and then I'll post a more focused thread which will explain, as carefully as I am capable of, why I left Objectivism for Christianity. Would you be willing to participate in a thread like that?
-
Certain about that, are you?
I didn't see where you replied to this, by the way: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276656
Your argument was pretty interesting, and I'd like you to clarify it for me.
-
Certain about that, are you?
No, I'm not. It could turn out that there's some conceptual truth about justification that I haven't discovered yet. I suppose that's part of why I'm discussing this with you guys.
-
The point is that if your conception of knowledge has no necessary connection to reality, in what sense can it be considered knowledge? You can term it whatever you want, but at the end of the day justification either ties claims to reality, or it doesn't. Your favored brand of 'justification' doesn't.
Right, justification doesn't "tie claims to reality."
That sucks.
I wish it did.
Yeah...
-
But that's the argument I put forward: that weak foundationalism isn't a foundation at all. By your own admission, it gives us no way of knowing that if I adhere to it that my beliefs are true. Since knowledge is justified true belief, weak foundationalism does not allow me to have knowledge, including of weak foundationalism. It reduces to skepticism (with the added twist that it says go ahead and believe whatever you want, you just won't be certain that it's true.) Weak foundationalism, like all skepticism, is self-refuting because in order to claim it as knowledge, it has to be possible that I have knowledge.
Right - if weak foundationalism is true, then there is no strong foundationalist flavored knowledge. There is, however, weak foundationalist flavored knowledge. Weak foundationalism is a whole different account of knowledge, not another way of achieving strong foundationalist knowledge.
Anything I claim to be true is non-sensory and non-logical, because its justification is that I just say it seems true to me, and the justification of that is because it seems true that what seems true is the justification for believing something is true.Right, insofar as you can ask "how do you know that?" three times in a row, and the answer will be, "it seems true," each of those three times. I don't think that there's a philosophical problem here unless you demand that we arrive at strong foundationalist justification at some point (which would be question begging).
Basically, here's what you just did:
Me: "I know x."
You: "How do you know that?"
Me: "It seems true."
You: "How do you know that?"
Me: "It seems true."
You: "How do you know that?"
Me: "It seems true."
You: "Ha ha! Victory!" *runs off
Me: *scratches head
This is circular, arbitrary, and invalid. In other words, this is just plain mysticism and thus warrants no further consideration.I have no idea where you got this conclusion from, sorry. You just pointed to parts of weak foundationalism and said, "that's different from strong foundationalism!" Well, yeah. That's the point.
-
You "seem" sure that there are "NO firm certain, foundations". You are stealing the concept certain.
I suppose it could turn out that there's a firm foundation for all knowledge. I don't expect that one will turn up.
-
Then the thread is over, your job here is done. There is no problem.
When it can be justified by the rules of a certain epistemology that that epistemology is false, then that epistemology is self-refuting. Stop wasting our time (yours included).
You don't have to spend your time on this thread if you don't want to. But you're simply mistaken in saying that if someone could possibly be justified in believing that weak foundationalism is false, then weak foundationalism is self refuting. Again, the claim is not that weak foundationalism implies that weak foundationalism is false; the claim is that weak foundationalism implies that (say) John Smith could be justified in believing that weak foundationalism is false. But since on weak foundationalism, we can be justified in believing things that are not true, that has no necessary implications for the truth of weak foundationalism.
I think you're confusing weak and strong foundationalism. On strong foundationalism, if a claim can be justified, then the claim has to be true. But on weak foundationalism, things are different.
Purpose of Objectivism
in Ethics
Posted
There are worse ways to relax than to spend time on an internet forum. It's pretty similar to playing online multiplayer video games, but the participants get to be intellectual while they are shooting down bad guys. You're welcome to leave if you've found a more enjoyable diversion, of course.