First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
They can assume but they did not test that theory. If they watched a boat go out to see, and vanish under the horizon line, than return you know the world is not flat, hence a simple test would easily disproved such faith based claims.
Assuming something as fact and knowing something to be through the logical methods are not the same thing.


They did test it. Looking into the distance is a test. And with no additional information available, they gave their test the benefit of doubt. Ultimately, it is a matter of what test you accept. The question 'Is it written in the Bible?' is a test, albeit not a very scientific one. Even within science, various fields have numerous schools, advocating different tests. The conclusion will often depend on the test, so very often choosing a test is also choosing a conclusion. In that sense, the chain of justification does not regress indefinitely, and if you trace it back, eventually you will arrive at some point where an arbitrary, and most probably practical, decision had been made.
Posted 8/6/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
They can assume but they did not test that theory. If they watched a boat go out to see, and vanish under the horizon line, than return you know the world is not flat, hence a simple test would easily disproved such faith based claims.
Assuming something as fact and knowing something to be through the logical methods are not the same thing.


They did test it. Looking into the distance is a test. And with no additional information available, they gave their test the benefit of doubt. Ultimately, it is a matter of what test you accept. The question 'Is it written in the Bible?' is a test, albeit not a very scientific one. Even within science, various fields have numerous schools, advocating different tests. The conclusion will often depend on the test, so very often choosing a test is also choosing a conclusion. In that sense, the chain of justification does not regress indefinitely, and if you trace it back, eventually you will arrive at some point where an arbitrary, and most probably practical, decision had been made.
This is why I resort to use different tests on the same subject, in order to obtain an objective perspective of the subject itself. I'll be more than happy to undergo infinite regress of justification, when the fact is that until the end of all things as we know it, the truth of our physical reality is uncertainty itself.
17894 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
They can assume but they did not test that theory. If they watched a boat go out to see, and vanish under the horizon line, than return you know the world is not flat, hence a simple test would easily disproved such faith based claims.
Assuming something as fact and knowing something to be through the logical methods are not the same thing.


They did test it. Looking into the distance is a test. And with no additional information available, they gave their test the benefit of doubt. Ultimately, it is a matter of what test you accept. The question 'Is it written in the Bible?' is a test, albeit not a very scientific one. Even within science, various fields have numerous schools, advocating different tests. The conclusion will often depend on the test, so very often choosing a test is also choosing a conclusion. In that sense, the chain of justification does not regress indefinitely, and if you trace it back, eventually you will arrive at some point where an arbitrary, and most probably practical, decision had been made.



As you said they assumed it to be true.. yet why do you think their look out towers are built tall.. because it allow them to see further do to the slant of the land (because the world was not flat). Their was people at the time that understood that, but to make such claims would go against what was said in their religion hence the Dark Ages. where logical thinking died and religion thrived.

In other words to observe something as fact does not make it fact or logical if you do not figure out why it is, or how.

Example: If I see a ghost at night, I can claim all day long that their is ghost, but that is not logical, because my claims are baseless, other than what I can see at that time. If I was to look into it, such as a examination, such as asking my self; what Am I looking at, could it be a trick played on my eyes from the light and shadow, Try to duplicate the incident based on what do know. Verify the facts what I have learn about it.. Such as At quick glance the moon light reflecting off the image look like some phantom or ghost.

See logical thinking is verifiable and testable.
Assuming something to be without sufficient evidence is superstitious and just baseless assumptions. Sight alone is one sense, and without examining it further is not a logical factor but instead still just an assumption.
People assumed that the world was flat, but not through logical thinking patterns but through faith.

As I place evidence at the time they had to work with, and with a logical sound mind came up with the truth.
1. Boats vanish under the horizon line. (evidence against flat earth hypothesis.)
2. Watch Towers built tall to see further. (evidence that the world is not flat.)

Both examples would disprove the flat earth assumption. An hence logical thinking requires more than assuming something as true without first having some understanding of it. Hence Agnosticism is also Illogical because they assume something is still possible even wen the evidence points else where.
Or the lack of evidence witch is evidence in it self against it.




8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
As you said they assumed it to be true.. yet why do you think their look out towers are built tall.. because it allow them to see further do to the slant of the land (because the world was not flat). Their was people at the time that understood that, but to make such claims would go against what was said in their religion hence the Dark Ages. where logical thinking died and religion thrived.

In other words to observe something as fact does not make it fact or logical if you do not figure out why it is, or how.

Example: If I see a ghost at night, I can claim all day long that their is ghost, but that is not logical, because my claims are baseless, other than what I can see at that time. If I was to look into it, such as a examination, such as asking my self; what Am I looking at, could it be a trick played on my eyes from the light and shadow, Try to duplicate the incident based on what do know. Verify the facts what I have learn about it.. Such as At quick glance the moon light reflecting off the image look like some phantom or ghost.

See logical thinking is verifiable and testable.
Assuming something to be without sufficient evidence is superstitious and just baseless assumptions. Sight alone is one sense, and without examining it further is not a logical factor but instead still just an assumption.
People assumed that the world was flat, but not through logical thinking patterns but through faith.

As I place evidence at the time they had to work with, and with a logical sound mind came up with the truth.
1. Boats vanish under the horizon line. (evidence against flat earth hypothesis.)
2. Watch Towers built tall to see further. (evidence that the world is not flat.)

Both examples would disprove the flat earth assumption. An hence logical thinking requires more than assuming something as true without first having some understanding of it. Hence Agnosticism is also Illogical because they assume something is still possible even wen the evidence points else where.
Or the lack of evidence witch is evidence in it self against it.


And they were mistaken. It turned out that our planet is neither flat nor round, it is an irregularly shaped spheroid, not a sphere properly so called. It was all a process of reviewing evidence, switching tests and so on and so forth. It was exactly because our species was not invincibly rigid that we came to accept what we currently hold to be true.

If we accept the universe to be deterministic, there is, of course, a set of facts, but to be able to understand every small aspect of a deterministic universe, we would need much, much greater mental capacity. We simply cannot consider all the facts relevant at the same time, so what is left to us is to review our conclusions in light of new considerations arising. For an example, please refer to the sphere - spheroid issue.

And who, exactly, is seeing ghosts here? Agnosticism, for the most part, is free of assertions with the possible exception of the claim that it is not possible to have knowledge. The position of agnosticism would be that 'I saw something that I cannot, indubitably, identify.'

I don't quite see where agnosticism, properly understood, makes presumptions. People claiming to be agnostics may, and I accept that it is fashionable nowadays to be agnostic, but agnosticism properly understood negates presumptions of all sorts and employs scepticism instead.

Scepticism cannot be a positive assumption. Scepticism is not a point, rather reservations as regards a point.

Again, definitions are important here. Agnosticism, fueled by scepticism, will not assume that ghosts exist, it will simply not accept your explanation as absolute, and it stems from this that the possibility of a wide, if not infinite, variety of explanations will not be ruled out.


This is why I resort to use different tests on the same subject, in order to obtain an objective perspective of the subject itself. I'll be more than happy to undergo infinite regress of justification, when the fact is that until the end of all things as we know it, the truth of our physical reality is uncertainty itself.


The possibility of infinite regress of justification is questionable. If you keep tracing back the chain of justification, you will arrive at a point where you will have to rely on your observations 'as is', because the natural world will not provide you with a definitive test or formula. You can carry out a great number of tests, it will hardly result in absolute proof. Unless and until you have considered all the factors available, you will not produce absolute proof.
Posted 8/6/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


This is why I resort to use different tests on the same subject, in order to obtain an objective perspective of the subject itself. I'll be more than happy to undergo infinite regress of justification, when the fact is that until the end of all things as we know it, the truth of our physical reality is uncertainty itself.


The possibility of infinite regress of justification is questionable. If you keep tracing back the chain of justification, you will arrive at a point where you will have to rely on your observations 'as is', because the natural world will not provide you with a definitive test or formula. You can carry out a great number of tests, it will hardly result in absolute proof. Unless and until you have considered all the factors available, you will produce absolute proof.
Well until new test method can be developed(that's where I think imagination should come into play), thus can yield significantly new evidences that would either support or against what we know thus far. Either way I think it's better than making entitlement claims on something that we don't know with absolute certainty, while using probability or possibility as an illusion of certainty for what's yet to come.
55310 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/6/10
Are moon is not made of cheese but we may find one someday. Imagine a small moon that had nothing but dairy farms on it. Once every month they load it on some space craft for deliver to a planet .Why who know maybe they blame Global warming on it the cows. Well one day there was an odder catastrophe on this moon, and it became difficult to live on. As the cow odder broke open and milk went all over the place. Some yeast and other molds a moon covered in cheese. the word agnostic about what agnostic cover allot of ground.from holding final judgment. I need a pun or so just for fun
17227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:


This is why I resort to use different tests on the same subject, in order to obtain an objective perspective of the subject itself. I'll be more than happy to undergo infinite regress of justification, when the fact is that until the end of all things as we know it, the truth of our physical reality is uncertainty itself.


The possibility of infinite regress of justification is questionable. If you keep tracing back the chain of justification, you will arrive at a point where you will have to rely on your observations 'as is', because the natural world will not provide you with a definitive test or formula. You can carry out a great number of tests, it will hardly result in absolute proof. Unless and until you have considered all the factors available, you will produce absolute proof.
Well until new test method can be developed(that's where I think imagination should come into play), thus can yield significantly new evidences that would either support or against what we know thus far. Either way I think it's better than making entitlement claims on something that we don't know with absolute certainty, while using probability or possibility as an illusion of certainty for what's yet to come.


The problem is, what exactly would make you place your trust in the new test method? Somewhere along the line you'd have to begin to believe the test is giving you correct and meaningful results. That's what Derfel is referring to as a point where you will have to rely on your observations 'as is' and to trust them as meaningful for no reason besides a hunch. If you do not do this, then you must develop another test to test the results of this test and where would you find faith for the truthfulness of your new test? As you can see, this cycle would continue forever.

Nothing we know to be fact is proven to the point of absolute certainty, how we personally decide to handle this dilemma is where our stances differ.
Posted 8/6/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:


This is why I resort to use different tests on the same subject, in order to obtain an objective perspective of the subject itself. I'll be more than happy to undergo infinite regress of justification, when the fact is that until the end of all things as we know it, the truth of our physical reality is uncertainty itself.


The possibility of infinite regress of justification is questionable. If you keep tracing back the chain of justification, you will arrive at a point where you will have to rely on your observations 'as is', because the natural world will not provide you with a definitive test or formula. You can carry out a great number of tests, it will hardly result in absolute proof. Unless and until you have considered all the factors available, you will produce absolute proof.
Well until new test method can be developed(that's where I think imagination should come into play), thus can yield significantly new evidences that would either support or against what we know thus far. Either way I think it's better than making entitlement claims on something that we don't know with absolute certainty, while using probability or possibility as an illusion of certainty for what's yet to come.


The problem is, what exactly would make you place your trust in the new test method? Somewhere along the line you'd have to begin to believe the test is giving you correct and meaningful results. That's what Derfel is referring to as a point where you will have to rely on your observations 'as is' and to trust them as meaningful for no reason besides a hunch. If you do not do this, then you must develop another test to test the results of this test and where would you find faith for the truthfulness of your new test? As you can see, this cycle would continue forever.

Nothing we know to be fact is proven to the point of absolute certainty, how we personally decide to handle this dilemma is where our stances differ.
You make it sounded like there's a problem with uncertainty due to infinite regress of justification, when the fact of the matter is that's precisely why any and all know laws of nature in the physical reality based on scientific discoveries are still just "theories". Not pseudoscience based on, for a lack of better word, utter stupid bullshit like this:

tarakelly wrote:

Are moon is not made of cheese but we may find one someday. Imagine a small moon that had nothing but dairy farms on it. Once every month they load it on some space craft for deliver to a planet .Why who know maybe they blame Global warming on it the cows. Well one day there was an odder catastrophe on this moon, and it became difficult to live on. As the cow odder broke open and milk went all over the place. Some yeast and other molds a moon covered in cheese. the word agnostic about what agnostic cover allot of ground.from holding final judgment. I need a pun or so just for fun
Blow it out your ass!
17227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


So...what exactly are we arguing here?

1. Nothing is proven absolutely certainly.
2. Therefore all things are possible.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.
55310 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/6/10
You think way to highly of or self, Nothing more than a hypothesis did get a kick you use utter stupid bullshit like this: by the way Bulls Don't have, utter or odder. By the way agnostic is not just about religion.
Posted 8/6/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


So...what exactly are we arguing here?

1. Nothing is proven absolutely certainly.
2. Therefore all things are possible.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.
That's where your leap of logic failed big time, when the possibility of baseless claim being true is 0%. When you just can't prove a negative no matter how hard you try, and in the case of agnostics, it's their pussy-ass disposition about the proposition of metaphysical existence based on just such faulty logic. When no evidence of just such existence is even less reliable than the human fallacy known as human memories.

Just how do you imagine to obtain factual and physical evidence of supernatural existence from the realm of metaphysic? When all you agnostics could ever hope to achieve in this particular argument is "sitting on your sorry asses while contemplating on nothingness".
67869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 8/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


So...what exactly are we arguing here?

1. Nothing is proven absolutely certainly.
2. Therefore all things are possible.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.
That's where your leap of logic failed big time, when the possibility of baseless claim being true is 0%. When you just can't prove a negative no matter how hard you try, and in the case of agnostics, it's their pussy-ass disposition about the proposition of metaphysical existence based on just such faulty logic. When no evidence of just such existence is even less reliable than the human fallacy known as human memories.

Just how do you imagine to obtain factual and physical evidence of supernatural existence from the realm of metaphysic? When all you agnostics could ever hope to achieve in this particular argument is "sitting on your sorry asses while contemplating on nothingness".


Oh fuck you too.

you want to tell me that you don't buy my stance fine. but you can keep your lousy insults to yourself. And that's Mr. Pussy to you.

Posted 8/6/10

tarakelly wrote:

You think way to highly of or self, Nothing more than a hypothesis did get a kick you use utter stupid bullshit like this: by the way Bulls Don't have, utter or odder. By the way agnostic is not just about religion.
And what do you think it's about? Moon made of cheese?

Blow it out your ass!
17227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


I'm not going to bother with prose if you're just going to rant.

1. The possibility of baseless claims being true is not 0%, there's something called a fluke.
2. The reason why you can't prove a negative is because everything is possible, not always probable, but possible none the less.
3. My "pussy ass disposition" is actually something called 'class', though it's not something I would expect a barbarian to understand.
4. I'm sitting on my not particularly apologetic ass doing various other things that are both more urgent and meaningful than contemplating nothingness.

You need to realize that you're choosing to believe something is impossible because it is improbable.
I am choosing to believe something is improbable because it is improbable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible. If anyone here failed in a leap of logic, it's you leaping from improbable to impossible.
Posted 8/6/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
That's where your leap of logic failed big time, when the possibility of baseless claim being true is 0%. When you just can't prove a negative no matter how hard you try, and in the case of agnostics, it's their pussy-ass disposition about the proposition of metaphysical existence based on just such faulty logic. When no evidence of just such existence is even less reliable than the human fallacy known as human memories.

Just how do you imagine to obtain factual and physical evidence of supernatural existence from the realm of metaphysic? When all you agnostics could ever hope to achieve in this particular argument is "sitting on your sorry asses while contemplating on nothingness".


Oh fuck you too.

you want to tell me that you don't buy my stance fine. but you can keep your lousy insults to yourself. And that's Mr. Pussy to you.

At least I got an honest respond out of it, even though I was hoping for a sufficient solution to the illogical agnostic disposition straight from the horse's mouth. It's thereby unfortunate that not all of us can utilize negative emotion quite as effectively.


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


I'm not going to bother with prose if you're just going to rant.

1. The possibility of baseless claims being true is not 0%, there's something called a fluke.
2. The reason why you can't prove a negative is because everything is possible, not always probable, but possible none the less.
3. My "pussy ass disposition" is actually something called 'class', though it's not something I would expect a barbarian to understand.
4. I'm sitting on my not particularly apologetic ass doing various other things that are both more urgent and meaningful than contemplating nothingness.

You need to realize that you're choosing to believe something is impossible because it is improbable.
I am choosing to believe something is improbable because it is improbable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible. If anyone here failed in a leap of logic, it's you leaping from improbable to impossible.
1)A fluke is still a cause, yet you've no proof that such is the supernatural existence of metaphysical causation. Thereby,

2)How's a possibly physical fluke be the probability of a supernatural existence of metaphysical causation? Unless,

3)Just like you referring me unapologetically as "barbarian" is by your definition of being classy and different than me, which self-evidently it isn't. Therefore,

4)Nothingness is still the foundation of all your beliefs based on.

I have a truth-seeking disposition, not a believe system. It's thereby you're the one who's kept making faulty leap of logic known as an oxymoron, when you haven't made your reasoning clear on just how improbability is improbability, and how improbable supernatural existence of metaphysical causation can possibly be true. Whereas I OTOH wasn't as clumsy with my logic in the first place. Unless you wish to argue that metaphysically supernatural existence is both "physically" and "naturally" quite possible.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.