• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Tricky said:
Since, as you admit, logic is only as good as its premises, then your logic must be the most worthless kind in existence, as you have never once provide an ounce of evidence for your premises. But of course, you don't understand (and refuse to learn) logic either, so I guess the lack of demonstrable premises doesn't bother you much.
Click to expand...
No, Trixie--you are quite simply wrong.

(tm)


It is only our logic that is only as good as its premises--and that, of course, it its fatal flaw. Iacchus's logic needs no premises to begin with; he begins with a conclusion, and anything which does not fit that conclusion is denied, obfuscated, or placed in "quotes". As such, his premises need no evidence, as they are wholly superfluous. The conclusion, once (literally) dreamt up, is more solid than bedrock; even the complete refutation of every iota of evidence for his premises does not, nor cannot, harm his conclusion. If the Teflon (tm) people ever got hold of this, the industrial revolution would be a mere trifle--this stuff is the bistromathics of planet Earth.

Iacchus's brand of logic is independent of evidence. Hell, it is independent of logic, too, and likely independent of time and space. And, as we know, time and space include everything we know. So...*Iacchus vanishes in a puff of logic*


ok, wishful thinking...
 
Tricky said:
Of course, since you have often demonstrated that you belive "nothing" means "a special kind of something", your statement sort of loses its steam.
Click to expand...
Oh, did I say nothing? So sorry. Maybe what I meant to say was the arbitrariness of it all?

Since, as you admit, logic is only as good as its premises, then your logic must be the most worthless kind in existence, as you have never once provide an ounce of evidence for your premises. But of course, you don't understand (and refuse to learn) logic either, so I guess the lack of demonstrable premises doesn't bother you much.
Click to expand...
You really don't get it do you?
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
It is only our logic that is only as good as its premises--and that, of course, it its fatal flaw. Iacchus's logic needs no premises to begin with; he begins with a conclusion, and anything which does not fit that conclusion is denied, obfuscated, or placed in "quotes".
Click to expand...
Only goes to show that you can't prove things by logic alone. It either exists or it doesn't exist, of which logic or, the lack thereof is not going to change that. ;)
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Only goes to show that you can't prove things by logic alone. It either exists or it doesn't exist, of which logic or, the lack thereof is not going to change that. ;)
Click to expand...

Logic or the lack thereof will surely not change what exists and what does not. Some people would consider logic to be important in proving what exists and what does not. You, for example, just recently suggested that William of Ockham was incorrect in his assessment of the accessibility of God to logic because of Thomas Aquinas's ontological proof. So did logic work, or did it not?

"The lack thereof" that you have so floridly demonstrated certainly will not change the opinions of those who expect orderly thought and careful expression. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
Iacchus said:
Only goes to show that you can't prove things by logic alone. It either exists or it doesn't exist, of which logic or, the lack thereof is not going to change that. ;)
Click to expand...
No, Iacchus, it is you who cannot prove things by logic alone...or indeed, logic in combination with anything else.

Actually, logic is one of the few areas where you can prove something. So you are wrong again. Not that this will surprise you.

The big thing around here, of course, is not logic but evidence. And thus far, every claim you have made has been counter to the evidence. If, as you say "it either exists or it doesn't exist", and all we have to go by is your testimony...then it simply does not exist. You have failed utterly in any attempt to support the conclusions you have assumed.

In fairness, most of us here recognise that you are a piss-poor logician, and do not take your arguments as the best arguments for your position. We reserve judgment, just a little, in case good evidence comes along; if coherent logic or proper evidence came along, we would attend to it (critically at first, of course, but that is to be expected, and good evidence will easily survive critical examination).

Maybe the best thing you could do to support your contentions would be to leave....quietly....
 
bruto said:
Logic or the lack thereof will surely not change what exists and what does not.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is very logical indeed.

Some people would consider logic to be important in proving what exists and what does not.
Click to expand...
Proving what to whom? Unless of course you see no logic in the ability to assess something (anything at all, really) through sentience.

You, for example, just recently suggested that William of Ockham was incorrect in his assessment of the accessibility of God to logic because of Thomas Aquinas's ontological proof.
Click to expand...
Only in the sense that it could not be argued which, is what it sounded like you were saying.

So did logic work, or did it not?
Click to expand...
It is a very logical argument. Some of us consider it valid. Some of us don't.

"The lack thereof" that you have so floridly demonstrated certainly will not change the opinions of those who expect orderly thought and careful expression. Garbage in, garbage out.
Click to expand...
If I were not sentient first, I would not be able to conclude by any means (logically or otherwise) the hand which existed in front of my face. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, they say, and you can use all the logic you want to wrestle it away from me, but it ain't going to work.
 
Mercutio said:
Maybe the best thing you could do to support your contentions would be to leave....quietly....
Click to expand...
Contrary to what you may wish to believe, I didn't show up at your doorstep to "get with the program." Hence, while I argue from the standpoint of conviction, you argue from the standpoint of being wholly ignorant of what that conviction entails. We are not in cahoots. We are adversaries.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
No, Trixie--you are quite simply wrong.

(tm)
Click to expand...
Just FYI, there is a Trademark™ in your character map. It looks so much more official that way.

Mercutio said:
It is only our logic that is only as good as its premises--and that, of course, it its fatal flaw. Iacchus's logic needs no premises to begin with; he begins with a conclusion, and anything which does not fit that conclusion is denied, obfuscated, or placed in "quotes". As such, his premises need no evidence, as they are wholly superfluous. The conclusion, once (literally) dreamt up, is more solid than bedrock; even the complete refutation of every iota of evidence for his premises does not, nor cannot, harm his conclusion. If the Teflon™ people ever got hold of this, the industrial revolution would be a mere trifle--this stuff is the bistromathics of planet Earth.

Iacchus's brand of logic is independent of evidence. Hell, it is independent of logic, too, and likely independent of time and space. And, as we know, time and space include everything we know.
Click to expand...
I said as much when I pointed out that Iacchus didn't understand logic. Putting conclusions first (sometimes by making them his premises) illustrates this.

You are quite simply long -winded.
Iacchus said:
Oh, did I say nothing? So sorry. Maybe what I meant to say was the arbitrariness of it all?
Click to expand...
Iacchus said:
Click to expand...

LOL. Now "nothing" means "arbitrary?" Maybe what you meant to say is that you don't have a clue what anyone is talking about, including yourself.
Iacchus said:
You really don't get it do you?
Click to expand...

There is no "it" to get. I've read your ramblings (and actually paid attention to what you were saying). I could probably restate your entire philosophy in a paragraph, so I speak from experience when I say it is vacuous.
Melendwyr said:
Oh, Mercutio, let me recommend to you a forum feature called the "Ignore List"...
Click to expand...
You don't understand, Mel. Mercutio and some others here live by a creed that that compels us to bite the butts of such purveyors of asinine ravings. "Leave no troll's behind", it is called.
 
Tricky said:
I said as much when I pointed out that Iacchus didn't understand logic. Putting conclusions first (sometimes by making them his premises) illustrates this.
Click to expand...
I can see (hence conclude) that the sky is blue.

LOL. Now "nothing" means "arbitrary?" Maybe what you meant to say is that you don't have a clue what anyone is talking about, including yourself.
Click to expand...
If by having no (definite) point of origin, yes.

There is no "it" to get. I've read your ramblings (and actually paid attention to what you were saying). I could probably restate your entire philosophy in a paragraph, so I speak from experience when I say it is vacuous.
Click to expand...
There "is" something there.

You don't understand, Mel. Mercutio and some others here live by a creed that that compels us to bite the butts of such purveyors of asinine ravings. "Leave no troll's behind", it is called.
Click to expand...
And you are "a troll" in your own right. ;)
 
Mercutio said:
Mod/Admins are not allowed to use it. With great power comes great responsibility...
Click to expand...
Use ye not the Ignore List in the software, which mods and admins have not, and others circumvent by quoting messages in their entirety. Yea, useth ye the Ignore List in your mind, and respondeth not to idiots and trolls, and retain ye peace of mind.
 
Melendwyr said:
Use ye not the Ignore List in the software, which mods and admins have not, and others circumvent by quoting messages in their entirety. Yea, useth ye the Ignore List in your mind, and respondeth not to idiots and trolls, and retain ye peace of mind.
Click to expand...
Would this be anything like asking me to quietly leave and "ignore" you folks? While the funny thing is, I was thinking just this before I read his post. Just a coincidence you say? Well, perhaps not, since it inevitably crosses my mind at some point during the day. ;) But then again, if after some semblence of rest, it would seem all is forgotten, then it is time to get back and address the dread of that which I would really care not to address.

So yes, I quite often wonder if I'm wasting my time posting on this forum.
 
Alright, nearly twenty pages.

Could the active parties please summarize the arguments that they've held in the duration of the debate, so that some consistency could be established to this rather long-winded thread?
 
Bone_Vulture said:
Alright, nearly twenty pages.

Could the active parties please summarize the arguments that they've held in the duration of the debate, so that some consistency could be established to this rather long-winded thread?
Click to expand...
It's simply a matter of which came first, mind or matter. If the mind arose from matter, as the materialists believe, then it precludes the explanation for anything else. The problem is, we only have the mind by which to tell us this. So, where is "the matter" in that? ;)
 
Iacchus said:
It's simply a matter of which came first, mind or matter. If the mind arose from matter, as the materialists believe, then it precludes the explanation for anything else. The problem is, we only have the mind by which to tell us this. So, where is "the matter" in that? ;)
Click to expand...
Actually, Bone_Vulture, this is a pretty good summary. In it, Iacchus employs the circular reasoning and mischaracterization he uses throughout the thread, so you can get not only a summary, but a sample.

It's almost fractal-like...
 
Mercutio said:
Actually, Bone_Vulture, this is a pretty good summary. In it, Iacchus employs the circular reasoning and mischaracterization he uses throughout the thread, so you can get not only a summary, but a sample.

It's almost fractal-like...
Click to expand...
Yes, and it is only circular because you have assumed the materialist's position here. In which case if it really is a matter of mind over matter, yours is a circular definition and, a dead-end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom