Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Friend to All
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Location: Larry Bird
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 72

Posted 07/08/04 - 11:07 PM:	#31
Logic has no place in this argument.
- "Look up. For there is a whole world of joy up thurr."

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/09/04 - 01:29 AM:	#32
So it's "reality' exists in that it is apparent, but it's "apparence" begs that it exists absolute in another reality. As I said to you my friend, you are abusing the terms "something" and "existence" to the point that they hold little meaning - this is the only way in which you might derive the conclusion "there is nothing". However, as I said many times, and as you have just agreed above, even an "apparent" something exists, and is therefore something. An illusion is something, a false idea is something, an apparent reality is something, even a NON-ABSOLUTE reality is SOMETHING. I don't believe I ever said "There is an absolute something based in an absolute reality" I simply said that there is something, and that the truth itself, not the something, is absolute. Anything is something. Apparent realities fall within the realm of anything - the fact that they can even be conceived or spoken of begs their own existence, be it limited or not. You spent the entire debate trying to prove that there wasn't absolute something, or absolute reality, all the while ignoring the fact that "something" could be ANYTHING, including apparent realities. If there was truly NOTHING (again, you're abusing this term horribly as well) then there couldn't be ANYTHING at all, including minds to question the nothing. An apparent reality destroys the notion of there being nothing at all, because as I said many times over, apparance is still something.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/09/04 - 09:03 AM:	#33
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: So it's "reality' exists in that it is apparent, but it's "apparence" begs that it exists absolute in another reality. Since we know "another reality" doesn't exist it's apparence begs to something that does not exist, and therefore it could be said that even the "apparence" is an "apparence ad infintium". I don't really know how to address your argument directly... I personally don't agree that "another reality" doesn't exist, so I guess I don't agree with the argument. But do you see any reason for it to be correct? Yes. Let me put it this way. Knowledge itself first came from observation. Ie, we as a human race started out believing that our perception corresponded to an external, absolute reality. Then, through that same foundation of perception corresponding to true states of reality, we were able to obtain knowledge that sometimes observation is incorrect (what you might call a flawed appearance). For instance, because most people distinguish between red and green but some people do not, we were able to realize that some people have flawed vision. If we didn't believe that red and green were different colors absolutely we could not have realized the flaw in some people's ability to perceive. We realized that through appearances. To undermine the knowledge of an external reality is to undermine the knowledge that sometime our perception is fallable. In other words, you would have to say that it might be a flawed appearance that there even is such a thing as a flawed appearance. As if strong belief renders absolute existance? It doesn't, but the point of our argument is not to "render existance" but to affect our belief of it. If my belief in absolute existance is strong, then for me there is indeed absolute existance. Though we want there to be, there's no difference between what we believe and the world beyond belief. Being objective is good, but no matter how hard you try, you can only be as objective as your own subjectivity will allow. Though we as philosophers and scientists try to excede our perception by trying to understand what's beyond perception in general, it is not possible. We can only use analogy such as, "We could be wrong about our perception corresponding to an absolute reality like we were wrong about the earth being flat." It's an analogy because we cannot actually comprehend what it would mean to be wrong about an external reality. We can only comprehend what it's like to be wrong in general. (Furthermore, it's not even possible to believe you are wrong about something until after the fact, since if you believe something is wrong then you, by definition, do not believe it.) I'm suggesting that you can't even actually believe the following statement, "Though I believe, through my every action, that there is an external absolute reality, I don't believe it absolutely." To believe is to believe absolutely. There's no difference. If you doubt it, then you don't believe it. You can't really differentiate between what you believe and what is outside of our belief/perception (the neumenal) because when you talk about what's outside of our belief you are talking about what you believe is outside of our belief. So you either believe in absolute reality or you don't. Let's talk about this "infinite regress of appearances" for a moment. Since, according to you, we have no idea if our appearances correspond to an absolute reality, we might be wrong or we might be right. Let's assign a 50/50 chance to it then. If our appearance is right, then that settles it. However, if our appearance is wrong, then we have to look at the appearance of our appearance and repeat the process and so on. Eventually, the odds are in my favor that one of them will exist absolutely. If you flip a coin an infinite number of times, eventually you will get heads. Would you bet money against me rolling double sixes given as many rolls as I want? Agreed, sometimes what we perceive is only apparent and does not correspond to reality. However, the reason we know that is because we must believe (and there is nothing to us outside of what we believe) that sometimes we have obtained correct absolute knowledge. Whether or not knowledge in general ever actually corresponds to absolute reality is irrelevant because we cannot believe that it doesn't.
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/09/04 - 09:55 AM:	#34
EntropicOrder wrote: I don't really know how to address your argument directly... I personally don't agree that "another reality" doesn't exist, so I guess I don't agree with the argument. Well what evidence do you have that points at another reality? Isn't this nothing more than metaphysical hypothesis that is the offshoot of believe in a god? If there is more justification, then what is it? To undermine the knowledge of an external reality is to undermine the knowledge that sometime our perception is fallable. I undermine nothing, I simply ratify it to what it is without all the assumptions and needs posited as reality. In other words, you would have to say that it might be a flawed appearance that there even is such a thing as a flawed appearance. Yes, that's exactly what I said. It doesn't, but the point of our argument is not to "render existance" but to affect my belief of it. If my belief in absolute existance is strong, then for me there is indeed absolute existance. Okay? I believe they call this "faith", or "delusion". "Though I believe, through my every action, that there is an external absolute reality, I don't believe it absolutely." I'm not questioning weather or not we actually believe in an external reality, I'm simply questioning what this "external reality" is. Since, according to you, we have no idea if our appearances correspond to an absolute reality, we might be wrong or we might be right. Let's assign a 50/50 chance to it then. If our appearance is right, then that settles it. However, if our appearance is wrong, then we have to look at the appearance of our appearance and repeat the process and so on. Eventually, the odds are in my favor that one of them will exist absolutely. If you flip a coin an infinite number of times, eventually you will get heads. Probabilities have no place in this argument, as any probability that you assign will be completely random and unfounded. Anyway, this whole paragraph still supposes that there is such a thing as an "absolute reality", even when it questions it. My question to you is "why does there need to be an absolute reality, why do you think there is an absolute reality"? However, the reason we know that is because we must believe (and there is nothing to us outside of what we believe) that sometimes we have obtained correct absolute knowledge. Whether or not knowledge in general ever actually corresponds to absolute reality is irrelevant because we cannot believe that it doesn't. Perhaps we are incapable of knowing or understanding our reality being an incomplete reality on the subconscious level, but that should not stop us from scholastically pursuing it is a real possibility. I think you are confusing understanding the "implications of the concept", and understanding the "concept itself". FoA Logic has no place in this argument. That could indeed be the case. My inferences could infact be false(yet to be shown), and my premise isn't exactly air-tight but it was agreed on in the debate, so it was valid for the debate. My conclusion is unpopular and at first offends all rationality, but does that really mean anything? Your best guess would be to show a hole in my inferences, or just attack my premise directly. However in terms of the debate, we'd have to leave the latter out. Socrastein As I said to you my friend, you are abusing the terms "something" and "existence" to the point that they hold little meaning - this is the only way in which you might derive the conclusion "there is nothing". That's not a logically sound argument. The only way you can arrive at this conclusion is through "this problem", and since you arrived at this conclusion you must have had "this problem". It's circular. However, as I said many times, and as you have just agreed above, even an "apparent" something exists, and is therefore something. That's not what I said, and the dismisses the rest of my argument, without even addressing it. An illusion is something, a false idea is something, an apparent reality is something, even a NON-ABSOLUTE reality is SOMETHING. I explained this to you in your analogy with the "beautiful mind guy". You said something to the effect of "It is apparent, but it is still something because it has foundation in reality". "His delusions are something becuase they are "holograms" in the real world". But what about if there is no "real world"? What if there is an infinite regress of nothingness? How can that be something, "something" implying being, and existance. I don't believe I ever said "There is an absolute something based in an absolute reality" I simply said that there is something, and that the truth itself, not the something, is absolute. "There is something" = "Something exists" = "being" = "exists in actuality and reality" If there is no actuality and reality then there is no being, then something does not exists, then there is not something. Your arguments supposes an "actuality or reality" weather you like it or not. And if the "actuality or reality" is only apparent then it is not "actuality or reality" at all. You spent the entire debate trying to prove that there wasn't absolute something, or absolute reality, all the while ignoring the fact that "something" could be ANYTHING, It is not my fault your "simple truth" implies so much.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/09/04 - 11:12 AM:	#35
That's not a logically sound argument. The only way you can arrive at this conclusion is through "this problem", and since you arrived at this conclusion you must have had "this problem". It's circular. Care to clarify that? Let me break my argument down and we'll see if it's circular. From my definition of "something", I derived the conclusion that even an apparent reality is something, and thus something exists. You argued against my proposition using your own personal definition of "something", narrowing it down to absolute being and absolute existence. Had you not created your own definition of "something", you would have had to accept my definition and, thusly, my conclusion. Because you did not accept my definition, you erroneously arrived at your own conclusion that there is nothing. Since the only way to arrive at YOUR conclusion is through YOUR definition, then, as I said before, "this is the only way in which you might derive the conclusion "there is nothing"." I don't get how it's circular. It seems kind of obvious actually, I was really only pointing out a "duh" statement. There's no way you could derive the conclusion "there is nothing" from my definition that even apparent somethings are something. Do you disagree? That's not what I said, and the dismisses the rest of my argument, without even addressing it. Let me jog your memory again: So it's 'reality' exists in that it is apparent, but it's "apparence" begs that it exists absolute in another reality. You said that apparent reality can have existence, just not absolute existence. But, as I've been saying, you have no reason whatsoever to separate something from apparent existence. Just because it doesn't have absolute existence, doesn't mean it isn't something. That was an ASSUMPTION that you conjectured for no rational reason that I can see. Just because I can't go out and touch and feel the law of noncontradiction, or the idea of freedom, or anything else that doesn't physically exist, doesn't mean they aren't all something. Even an idea is something. A thought is something. An illusion is something. An apparent something is something in itself. If you can even speak of it, it's something. In truth, the idea of 'nothing' doesn't exist, because if you can think it, it isn't really nothing. Nothing can't be anything. Nothing can't even be apparent. Nothing means no thing, and I have defined a thing as ANYTHING, not just a physical or absolute thing. You have defined a thing as ONLY an absolute thing, for no reason but to further your arguments. Apparance is something, at it's very very least it's a concept. Even if that's all it is, a concept, then that's still something. I explained this to you in your analogy with the "beautiful mind guy". You said something to the effect of "It is apparent, but it is still something because it has foundation in reality". "His delusions are something becuase they are "holograms" in the real world". But what about if there is no "real world"? What if there is an infinite regress of nothingness? How can that be something, "something" implying being, and existance. Again, you're abusing existence as though it can only be pertaining to physical existence. I don't see how else you are deriving the idea that an apparance has no existence. Like I said, thoughts and concepts have no existence under that definition, but now existence really has no meaning if my own thoughts don't even exist in some way. If you're not defining existence or being as physical existence or being, then how are you definining them otherwise? And for the analogy I gave, I'll concede that in itself it was a bad analogy. That doesn't really hurt my argument, it just hurts my analogy. Now that it's discarded, how do you hope to argue your case, seeing as how you referenced my own example in your rebuttles more than I did myself "There is something" = "Something exists" = "being" = "exists in actuality and reality" Yeah yeah yeah, I never disagreed with that, I only disagreed with your redefinitions of something, being and existence, because you redefined what are very broad and general words as narrow and limiting. Like I said, 'something' includes anything, any thing whatsoever. You decided to, for what reason I've yet to understand, redefine something as what can only be interpreted as "Something that physically exists". Your arguments supposes an "actuality or reality" weather you like it or not. And if the "actuality or reality" is only apparent then it is not "actuality or reality" at all. Only if you, again, redefine these things abusively. If everything is apparent, then that is the reality, that is the actuality. Even your infinite regress of appearence is a reality. If everything is an illusion, then that's the actuality of the situation. If I can even be decieved, if I can even comprehend an apparent reality, if an apparent reality exists, then something exists. I've said it many times and I'll say it again until you, or at least the people reading this, catch on - your entire argument rests on erroneous redefinitions of something, being, existence, reality, actuality, etc. You've narrowed them down to exclude apparence, solely for the sake of your argument. If you can't even argue against my statement by actually arguing against what I MEANT AND SAID, then you have no argument whatsoever. What you are doing is no different than arguing against the Christian God by saying "But Zeus couldn't have thrown lightning bolts because they would have obviously burned his hand". You ENTIRE ARGUMENT ThusSpokeZarathustra, has been one huge, elaborate, irrational, dishonest, fallacy. Genus = Non Sequitur Species = Straw Man Definition = Trying to refute one proposition by arguing against another proposition. I will spell it out for you: You have argued against MY proposition - There is something, something being ANYTHING whatsoever that can possibly exist in any way, shape, or form, including but not limited to - physical objects, ideas, appearance, natural laws, and illusions. The fallacy arises from HOW you argued against my proposition: by arguing against a DIFFERENT proposition, trying to cleverly convey the idea that refuting one refutes the other. I.E., you've argued that there is not something, something being ONLY that which exists in 'actuality' absolutely. So, you have based your entire argument against my statement on a different understanding of my statement. You've argued against "there is something" by deciding to come up with your own definition of what "something is". All the while, you've never even touched my actual statement. If you were to do so, you would have to find a way to refute "there is something" using the definition of something as being ANY THING - physical, metaphysical, spiritual, natural, supernatural, actual, apparent, what have you. If it can even be concieved of, it is at least a concept, and is even something in that sense. I mentioned in the debate that I, and others, would even contend that 'nothing' cannot exist. There could never be 'nothing'. However, it doesn't even have to go that far, because the fact that we think and observe and conceive and maybe even the fact that we're all deluded into apparent realities - all of it substantiated that there is something. It is not my fault your "simple truth" implies so much. It only implies one thing - there is something. It implies exactly what it says. Nothing changes if you properly equate "there is something" with "something exists" and whatever else, assuming you uphold the same definition. You can say a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a all you want, but that doesn't mean I've presented a complicated truth. All I ever said was A
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/09/04 - 11:53 AM:	#36
Care to clarify that? Let me break my argument down and we'll see if it's circular. No, the argument is still circular, its assumption and its conclusion are basically the same thing. I don't get how it's circular. It seems kind of obvious actually, I was really only pointing out a "duh" statement. There's no way you could derive the conclusion "there is nothing" from my definition that even apparent somethings are something. And you explained to us how "apparents somethings are something", and it requires a "real reality". However if there is "real reality" as I have asserted, then "apparents somethings are nothings". You said that apparent reality can have existence, just not absolute existence. If you completely misunderstand that whole paragraph then you can say this. "Apparent somethings' as shown in your analogy beg that they exist in a real "reality". The "reality" of apparence begs existence in another "reality". However if there is no other "reality" then the "reality of apparence" is only apparent ad infintium and has no foundation in existance whatsoever. Two realities here, the "true reality" that the apparences have foundation in(agreed). And the reality created by the apparences(agreed). The latter is contingent upon the former, if the former doesn't exist, then neither does the latter. Just because it doesn't have absolute existence, doesn't mean it isn't something. That was an ASSUMPTION that you conjectured for no rational reason that I can see. I explained that at the very end of the argument remember the bold There is NOthing. And I just explained it to you and entropic. Feel free pick apart the reaonsing, rather than saying "your conclusion can't possibly be true, therefore you reaosning is invalid". A thought is something. An illusion is something. An apparent something is something in itself. If you can even speak of it, it's something. In truth, the idea of 'nothing' doesn't exist, because if you can think it, it isn't really nothing. Nothing can't be anything. Nothing can't even be apparent. Nothing means no thing, and I have defined a thing as ANYTHING, not just a physical or absolute thing. You have defined a thing as ONLY an absolute thing, for no reason but to further your arguments. Apparance is something, at it's very very least it's a concept. Even if that's all it is, a concept, then that's still something. Avoiding the argument an appealing to what at first site seems rational. Not valid. Again, you're abusing existence as though it can only be pertaining to physical existence. No I'm not. I used the definition congruent with Cogito, and that supposes that "thought" is real and has being. I don't see how else you are deriving the idea that an apparance has no existence. I just told you. Just because it offends reason at first site, doesn't mean it is logically invalid, or that it is wrong. It just means that your favorite assumptions are being questioned. Like I said, thoughts and concepts have no existence under that definition, but now existence really has no meaning if my own thoughts don't even exist in some way. You're telling me that the definition of being that is in connection with "cogito" supposes that thoughts and concept have no existence? Straw man. Yeah yeah yeah, I never disagreed with that, I only disagreed with your redefinitions of something, being and existence, because you redefined what are very broad and general words as narrow and limiting. I used the definition that is concurrent with Cogito, according to the dictionary. Might I remind you that Cogito was an argument used by you. You decided to, for what reason I've yet to understand, redefine something as what can only be interpreted as "Something that physically exists". No, I've defined as implying reality and actuality. My argument does not disqualify ideas as being non-somethings. If everything is apparent, then that is the reality, that is the actuality. Not according to the definition of "being", and not according to your analogy. An infinite regress of apparences more than makes up for this assumption. If everything is an illusion, then that's the actuality of the situation. Which is itslef an illusion with infinite regress. You ENTIRE ARGUMENT ThusSpokeZarathustra, has been one huge, elaborate, irrational, dishonest, fallacy. Straw man. You suppose I changed the defintion that I never changed, and then try to discredit me with that assumption, while appealing back to my "real" argument. Nothing changes if you properly equate "there is something" with "something exists" and whatever else, assuming you uphold the same definition. You can say a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a=a all you want, but that doesn't mean I've presented a complicated truth. You already tried to get out on definitions, and if failed, why try again?] You forget that for "there to be something",something has to exist.

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/10/04 - 02:15 AM:	#37
ThusSpokeZarathustra, this whole debate is very interesting to me so I desparately want to understand your point of view. I think it would be great if somehow the 3 of us could agree on the truth of this matter. This is something I just can't understand. How can logic question its own existance? Before even looking at what argument you might have, I have to first understand how the conclusion could even be meaningful. If logic exists, then that is something according to Socrastein. If you say it's possible that even logic doesn't exist, and that you arrived at this conclusion through the use of logic, then isn't that whole statement meaningless? If logic doesn't exist, then you couldn't have reached the conclusion through logic as you've said. (And remember, we're not operating from an imagined nothingness, we are operating from the perspective of people sitting at computers try to convey to each other meaningful concepts.) I can say "married bachelor", but that doesn't mean what I said has meaning, or that I can actually believe it to be possible (even if I think I believe it's possible). To suggest that it's possible to escape the rules of logic is meaningless; impossible to believe or even fathom (as I've said already). Even if somehow it is possible to escape logic, it is impossible for me to have any idea what that even means because the very word "possibility" itself depends on logic. Do you agree? I understand that it is important to differentiate between what we believe and the implications of how our belief could be wrong, and you're probably right in that I was too dogmatic about them being indistinguishable. However, what I am suggesting is that in this particular case, it is utterly impossible to distinguish between what we believe to be the case and what is actually the case. We must necessarily believe that logic (something) exists, impossible to not exist. It is impossible to believe otherwise, and impossible to distinguish that belief from what actually is the case. One must necessarily believe that one's strong belief in the existance of Socrastein's something indeed correlates with actual reality (or what I was calling "absolute reality", although that might be amiguous since "relative reality" is still something). Even if that belief is somehow wrong, it is inevitable. What makes this very hard is that we are trying to imagine ourselves observing a nothingness, yet not ourselves existing to observe (nothingness), while simultaneously believing ourselves to be here in the present, talking to each other, conveying meanings through words (somethingness). It seems to me that trying to use logic (existing in the somethingness) to suggest that not even logic exists or is true (considering the nothingness) is what creates the situation where we cannot distinguish between what we believe and what actually is (the phenomenal and the neumenal) because it is not possible for our human minds to transcend logic, even theoretically. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Reread what I wrote if need be, because I sincerely want to understand and agree with you if you are correct, and I have taken great care to put all my thoughts and conclusions thus far into this one post. If you understand my perspective expressed in this one post, then you can address my belief directly. If not, however, then I think this will be my last post regarding the matter, though I hope it isn't.
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/10/04 - 02:41 AM:	#38
And you explained to us how "apparents somethings are something", and it requires a "real reality". However if there is "real reality" as I have asserted, then "apparents somethings are nothings". How are they nothing? Maybe you should differentiate between "apparent something" and "something". Further, see if you can do it without referencing any observers/perceivers. And even further, tell me how you can apply a noun, words, meaning, and references to something that has no form of existence whatsoever. If "apparent somethings" had no being in any way, that phrase would have no meaning, it would reference nothing at all, and to use it would be as absurd as trying to describe "nothing" itself. Two realities here, the "true reality" that the apparences have foundation in(agreed). And the reality created by the apparences(agreed). The latter is contingent upon the former, if the former doesn't exist, then neither does the latter. So if the latter exists, does that mean the former has to, logically? I explained that at the very end of the argument remember the bold There is NOthing. And I just explained it to you and entropic. Feel free pick apart the reaonsing, rather than saying "your conclusion can't possibly be true, therefore you reaosning is invalid". No, I'm saying your conclusion is invalid because you're reaching it through straw man definitions and assumptions. Avoiding the argument an appealing to what at first site seems rational. Not valid. I'm appealing to what at first, second, third, and every site seems rational. Anything is something. That's pretty logical right there. However, you're saying "Anything could be nothing". Not valid. No I'm not. I used the definition congruent with Cogito, and that supposes that "thought" is real and has being. Real in any way, having being in any way. If it's not nothing, it's something. Nothing means nothing, nothing at all. You can't speak of something as being nothing, because you've just given it context and a level of being. That is such a ridiculously simple idea, I fail to understand how it escapes you so. Not according to the definition of "being", and not according to your analogy. An infinite regress of apparences more than makes up for this assumption. I already took back the analogy, so you can stop holding on to that one. And I showed you long before that "being" includes everything I've said it does, however you weakly tried to argue that those parts of the definition are somehow irrelevent. I just told you. Just because it offends reason at first site, doesn't mean it is logically invalid, or that it is wrong. It just means that your favorite assumptions are being questioned. To speak of nothing, to classify nothing, to apply words and nouns and meaning to nothing, to argue over nothing - all of this is contradictory, illogical, and nonsensical; it doesn't matter how many times you look at it. You're telling me that the definition of being that is in connection with "cogito" supposes that thoughts and concept have no existence? Straw man. You and I can both conceptualize "apparent somethings", but you're telling me they have no existence. Not a straw man at all; that's exactly what you're doing. YOU'RE the one saying our thoughts have no existence, not me. I used the definition that is concurrent with Cogito, according to the dictionary. Might I remind you that Cogito was an argument used by you. Cogito was only evidence. It wasn't my argument. Before I even mentioned cogito you were already using other definitions, so don't try and pull a fast one on me as if you did anything less. Like I said, you keep narrowing down the definitions to fit your arguments, because as you demonstrated before, you won't accept the use of an entire definition in full context, because when you actually use the word with all it's meaning intact, your "apparent something" nothings fall apart. No, I've defined as implying reality and actuality. My argument does not disqualify ideas as being non-somethings. Ideas ARE actuality, they ARE reality - they don't simply imply it. That's like saying seeing a tree implies that there are trees - so are you going to see one and say "Hey, there must be trees somewhere, I better go find one!" No, the tree itself proves trees - ideas, concepts, thoughts, ANYTHING proves SOMETHING. Which is itslef an illusion with infinite regress. An illusion is still something, for the millionth time. If it's not, to what do you refer to when you use that word? You refer to nothing? Then why are you speaking? Straw man. You suppose I changed the defintion that I never changed, and then try to discredit me with that assumption, while appealing back to my "real" argument. Your definition is not the same as mine. If you are arguing against a different statement than I'm making, it's a straw man. That's very elementary. You already tried to get out on definitions, and if failed, why try again? Get out? No, I've tried to get you to address my statement as I intended it to be understood. You've failed to do so. You forget that for "there to be something",something has to exist. No, I never forgot that. I simply said that your idea of "existence" is very limited and contrary to mine.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/10/04 - 02:49 AM:	#39
Socrastien, do you agree with my last post?
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/10/04 - 07:08 AM:	#40
Socrastien, do you agree with my last post? Absolutely. I said many times in the official debate that just about anything one does to try and disprove existence, or prove their is nothing, would only destroy one's own efforts. Like you said, only with logic can you argue, prove, disprove, show possibility, show impossibility etc. So it seems rather foolish to try and question the existence of logic with logic itself
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.