Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


The picture of the sloth has nothing to do with the argument. I posted a picture because I said there might be pictures. It's called humor.
*facepalm*

I didn't ask you what is a stronger prediction, so stop rambling about it. Answer my questions or don't bother posting. I'll copy/paste them here again for your convenience.

You keep saying I'm illogical and ignorant, care to point out where I was being illogical or ignorant? Don't forget to include why.

I know that I don't know anything with complete certainty, but some things are more likely than others due to the convergence of similar experiences of phenomenons. Tell me how this is illogical.
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


The picture of the sloth has nothing to do with the argument. I posted a picture because I said there might be pictures. It's called humor.
*facepalm*

I didn't ask you what is a stronger prediction, so stop rambling about it. Answer my questions or don't bother posting. I'll copy/paste them here again for your convenience.

You keep saying I'm illogical and ignorant, care to point out where I was being illogical or ignorant? Don't forget to include why.

I know that I don't know anything with complete certainty, but some things are more likely than others due to the convergence of similar experiences of phenomenons. Tell me how this is illogical.
You're using coherentism as a reliable justification? When falsified memories can be implanted into individuals without independent experiences, and the human imagination can be more vivid than memories, while the social mechanism of organized religious faith as a form of ideology is both neurologically and sociologically real. The fact that you're willing to believe in something just because you've heard many people having similar experience is utterly illogical.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


I said some things are more likely than others, I never said they were true. I'm not believing they are truth, I'm believing the more likely things are more probable. Until you learn to make the distinction between "possible", "probable" and "inevitable" we will never resolve this argument.

The convergence of experiences could all be my own experiences. The convergence of phenomenon could all be phenomenon I personally observed. The straw man occurred when you automatically assumed that I would consider only the experiences of others and attacked that instead of what I actually said. So stop it with your straw mans, seriously.
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


I said some things are more likely than others, I never said they were true. I'm not believing they are truth, I'm believing the more likely things are more probable. Until you learn to make the distinction between "possible", "probable" and "inevitable" we will never resolve this argument.

The convergence of experiences could all be my own experiences. The convergence of phenomenon could all be phenomenon I personally observed. The straw man occurred when you automatically assumed that I would consider only the experiences of others and attacked that instead of what I actually said. So stop it with your straw mans, seriously.
Even when individuals like yourself can have errors in their memories? Surely you jest.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


Which is exactly why I said I don't believe they are definitely true. I said they are probably true, and that probability is high enough for me to act upon them.
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Which is exactly why I said I don't believe they are definitely true. I said they are probably true, and that probability is high enough for me to act upon them.
So in the end you could just be acting upon false beliefs, well then goodly illogical for you! When you don't even have a reliable process to calculate the probability of your beliefs being true. BTW, just how probable that true is false? Where's your logic in that?
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


Ok so since you're proclaiming to be logical, tell me this: Which direction do you think a ball will fall if you drop it? What process did you use to come to that conclusion?

Do you realize that all processes to calculate the true probability of our beliefs are paradoxical? In order for such a process to have any meaning, two things need to be established. First we need to assume what our senses are telling us is actually the truth. Second we need to be certain the process we are using is reliable.

How do we prove our senses to be absolutely accurate? We cannot. We can only prove them to be relatively accurate.

How do we prove our process is absolutely reliable? We also cannot. We can only prove it to be relatively reliable.

Therefor this reliable process that you want to use to show the absolute certainty of an event is a logical impossibility.
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Ok so since you're proclaiming to be logical, tell me this: Which direction do you think a ball will fall if you drop it? What process did you use to come to that conclusion?

Do you realize that all processes to calculate the true probability of our beliefs are paradoxical? In order for such a process to have any meaning, two things need to be established. First we need to assume what our senses are telling us is actually the truth. Second we need to be certain the process we are using is reliable.

How do we prove our senses to be absolutely accurate? We cannot. We can only prove them to be relatively accurate.

How do we prove our process is absolutely reliable? We also cannot. We can only prove it to be relatively reliable.

Therefor this reliable process that you want to use to show the absolute certainty of an event is a logical impossibility.
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?


I edited the post and added a bit more. Maybe you didn't see it cause you were writing this reply. Anyways, care to respond to the rest of that post?
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?


I edited the post and added a bit more. Maybe you didn't see it cause you were writing this reply. Anyways, care to respond to the rest of that post?
What? You don't know how to make an objective proposition based on relativity? AKA inductive reasoning via multiple perspectives. Don't you ever try to answer your own damn question for once? Or is that the limitation of your single-mindedness?
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?


I edited the post and added a bit more. Maybe you didn't see it cause you were writing this reply. Anyways, care to respond to the rest of that post?
What? You don't know how to make an objective proposition based on relativity? AKA inductive reasoning via multiple perspectives. Don't you ever try to answer your own damn question for once? Or is that the limitation of your single-mindedness?


Stop throwing red herrings at me, stick to the topic at hand.

How do you come to the conclusion that you did about the ball if you didn't also believe in your own imperfect perception of reality?
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?


I edited the post and added a bit more. Maybe you didn't see it cause you were writing this reply. Anyways, care to respond to the rest of that post?
What? You don't know how to make an objective proposition based on relativity? AKA inductive reasoning via multiple perspectives. Don't you ever try to answer your own damn question for once? Or is that the limitation of your single-mindedness?


Stop throwing red herrings at me, stick to the topic at hand.

How do you come to the conclusion that you did about the ball if you didn't also believe in your own imperfect perception of reality?
Who says reliability equals perfection? When it just has to work until new situation arises. What do you think we've got evolution for? Furthermore, when I only need to perceive all the imperfection of the world, I can still get an objective reality of the situation. I believe in imperfection, because all I can see is imperfection that works.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?


I edited the post and added a bit more. Maybe you didn't see it cause you were writing this reply. Anyways, care to respond to the rest of that post?
What? You don't know how to make an objective proposition based on relativity? AKA inductive reasoning via multiple perspectives. Don't you ever try to answer your own damn question for once? Or is that the limitation of your single-mindedness?


Stop throwing red herrings at me, stick to the topic at hand.

How do you come to the conclusion that you did about the ball if you didn't also believe in your own imperfect perception of reality?
Who says reliability equals perfection? When it just has to work until new situation arises. What do you think we've got evolution for? Furthermore, when I only need to perceive all the imperfection of the world, I can still get an objective reality of the situation. I believe in imperfection, because all I can see is imperfection that works.


So if that's what you believe, how are you going to criticize my view that all things are possible when at best all you have is just "reliability" as a determining factor? You don't have the truth either, so you have no ground to condemn me for not having it.
Posted 8/8/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Up, when I'm the one who's upside down.

Staying still, when I'm falling along with it.

Away from me, when I'm horizontally placed above ground-level.

Towards me, when I'm standing between it and the ground.

Finally, when relative to the Earth's gravitational force strength, it's accelerating at a constant 9.80665 m/s2 with a vector towards the center of the Earth's gravity well.

What? You never took physics before?


I edited the post and added a bit more. Maybe you didn't see it cause you were writing this reply. Anyways, care to respond to the rest of that post?
What? You don't know how to make an objective proposition based on relativity? AKA inductive reasoning via multiple perspectives. Don't you ever try to answer your own damn question for once? Or is that the limitation of your single-mindedness?


Stop throwing red herrings at me, stick to the topic at hand.

How do you come to the conclusion that you did about the ball if you didn't also believe in your own imperfect perception of reality?
Who says reliability equals perfection? When it just has to work until new situation arises. What do you think we've got evolution for? Furthermore, when I only need to perceive all the imperfection of the world, I can still get an objective reality of the situation. I believe in imperfection, because all I can see is imperfection that works.


So if that's what you believe, how are you going to criticize my view that all things are possible when at best all you have is just "reliability" as a determining factor? You don't have the truth either, so you have no ground to condemn me for not having it.
Because if all things are possible, then why humans can't fly under their own power?

That's what happens when one plays god via possibility, it's a recipe for human irrationality, not untruthfulness. So just keep telling me what you "truly" believe is possible all you want, you're still irrational. When truth doesn't equal rationality either.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10

DomFortress wrote:


You're the one who said we cannot believe our experiences. If we can't believe our experiences, we also don't know for a fact that we can't fly. Although it's very probable that we can't fly, which is why I'm not going to be jumping off buildings any time soon. You're the one being irrational when you choose to believe something is absolute when nothing can be proven absolutely. You're also being irrational when you choose to believe in the absolute nonexistence of certain things when it has not been proven.
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.