So, when someone like me comes along and suggests otherwise, then obviously I must the liar. Which, is the only determination one could make, from someone who is so close-minded.
One can only be certain to the degree that they are self-aware. This is where it all begins.
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,583
Argue with yourself often, do you?
More attacks from you?Argue with yourself often, do you?
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,583
Have another look at post #241. You quoted yourself, then argued with your own quote.
Or was it two of your personalities having a debate?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
So then are you saying that it is your superior ability to be certain of things (including those for which there is no evidence) that is the "key"? If so, what is it the key to? Lots of delusional people are "certain" about things which are incorrect, while most wise people admit that they could be wrong.
Oh, is that what you call it? It was just an after thought.
I am most certain of myself sitting here in front of the computer typing at the keyboard, correct.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
No. It means that you claim (in your example) to have evidence. This runs contrary to my expectations (status quo). Therefore the call for this evidence, and substantiating information is made. Only if it is shown that you knowingly made a false claim would it be said that you are a liar.
Meaning I base everything that I'm certain of upon self-awareness. Because there can be no knowledge of anything without an observer ... who, of course is self-aware.
Yes, everyone who goes up against the status quo, by default, must be a liar.
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,583
Earth to Planet Iacchus. Come in, please.
"Everyone who goes up against the status quo" is just everyone who goes up against the status quo. They are not liars unless they use false statements to justify their position.
Believe it or not, it is possible for two groups to have a difference of opinion without one of them being liars.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
For that, you have evidence, as do we. It is not 100% certain, but since we know how the forum works, it pretty strong evidence. Now, the part where you are "certain there was something before the big bang". Can you give us some strong evidence for that? How about weak evidence? How about any evidence?
How do you decide whether or not you are "certain" about a thing, if not by evidence?
Funny. I've always thought the status quo had more to do with politics. And we all know how deceptive that can be ...
Last edited:
As certain as I am the observer sitting in this chair. Why, how is it that you come to know about things?
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,583
Main Entry: status quo
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, state in which
: the existing state of affairs; specifically : the last actual and uncontested state of affairs that preceded a controversy and that is to be preserved by preliminary injunction
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Always glad to be a force for education.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Actually, everybody is a liar. I challenge any person here to claim that they have never lied. So being a liar is a given, it is simply a matter of degree. I will say in your defense though, that being delusional is not the same thing as being a liar.
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,583
"Now listen very carefully, Norman: I am lying."
Yes, I am a Trekkie.
I'm getting better, honest.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I didn't say I know it. I said I had evidence for it. Everybody I have ever seen who works on a computer has the computer in front of them. Computers are designed to be manipulated by a person facing them and typing on their keyboards. Since you are obviously working on a computer, evidence suggests you have the computer in front of you. There is a small possibility that you have devised another way to do it, but based on the evidence from the bulk of your posts, I seriously doubt you have the ability to design an alternate input system.
Oh, you really are amusing. Remember way back then, when you told me you were quite certain? Do you remember the other thing I asked of you? That you not only state what you believe to be true, but also state the evidence by which you believe it?
And what is your evidence?
So...thanks to multiple layers of a priori assumptions, and the miracle of circular reasoning, we get "I am aware that I exist, therefore god existed before time and space, and god created the big bang." One heck of an inference there...made possible by a collossal ignorance of biology, psychology, physics, and cosmology. Fortunately, since those are all sciences, and since science admits the possibility of less than 100% certainty, there is room for Iacchus to believe that his lunacy is legitimate.