• 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.

Existence vs Awareness

Iacchus said:
Really? And I'm suggesting this appears to be the only alternative to what you're suggesting.
Click to expand...


Then you are suggesting a false dichotomy. Especially since, again, I am not making ANY arguments beyond arguing that your arguments are un-compelling.

Though it is another nice diversionary tactic. It is a nice try to divert the conversation away from the fact that you have nothing to back up your statements except a lot of hot air.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Then you are suggesting a false dichotomy. Especially since, again, I am not making ANY arguments beyond arguing that your arguments are un-compelling.

Though it is another nice diversionary tactic. It is a nice try to divert the conversation away from the fact that you have nothing to back up your statements except a lot of hot air.
Click to expand...
So, how do we know that we're not solipsists? Because there appears to be other folks around us who share a similar experience.
 
Last edited:
Nyarlathotep said:
Though it is another nice diversionary tactic. It is a nice try to divert the conversation away from the fact that you have nothing to back up your statements except a lot of hot air.
Click to expand...
And what argument, pray tell, would you use against solipsism? Because it's popular to believe otherwise? :confused:
 
I have no idea how I would argue either for or against solipsism, since I am not that familiar with that particular philosphy. Which is why I do NOT argue for or against it. Unlike certain other posters who shall remain nameless (cough..Iacchus..cough), if I don't know jack about a subject, I don't try to pretend I do. Notice that YOU were the one who brought solipsism up, not I.


I AM, however, familiar with common logical fallacies and why they are fallacies. ANd your argument that the supernatural must exist because 'history is rife with tales of the supernatural' is a fallacious argument, because lots of people have believed lots of things throughout history, and lots of those things have turned out to be untrue. And there is no reason to suppose that the existance of the supernatural isn't one of those untrue but commonly believed things.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
I have no idea how I would argue either for or against solipsism, since I am not that familiar with that particular philosphy. Which is why I do NOT argue for or against it. Unlike certain other posters who shall remain nameless (cough..Iacchus..cough), if I don't know jack about a subject, I don't try to pretend I do. Notice that YOU were the one who brought solipsism up, not I.
Click to expand...
A solipsist is one who claims he is the only one who exists. Everything else is just a figment of his perception.

I AM, however, familiar with common logical fallacies and why they are fallacies. ANd your argument that the supernatural must exist because 'history is rife with tales of the supernatural' is a fallacious argument, because lots of people have believed lots of things throughout history, and lots of those things have turned out to be untrue. And there is no reason to suppose that the existance of the supernatural isn't one of those untrue but commonly believed things.
Click to expand...
And, while I grant the evidence I speak of is not incisive (except perhaps for those who have experienced it), it is evidence nonetheless, and there's no excuse for someone to come along and claim there is no evidence. This is all that I'm really arguing against. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything beyond the fact that evidence does exist.
 
Iacchus said:
A solipsist is one who claims he is the only one who exists. Everything else is just a figment of his perception.
Click to expand...

I know the definition of solipsism, however I do not beleive that small bit of knowledge is sufficient to make an argument for or against a philosphy.

Iacchus said:
And, while I grant the evidence I speak of is not incisive (except, perhaps for those who have experienced it), it is evidence nonetheless, and there's no excuse for someone to come along and claim there is no evidence. This is all that I'm really arguing against. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything beyond the fact that evidence does exist.
Click to expand...

Right and wrong. It is evidence, but not of what you think. The fact that lots of people throughout history have had supernatural experiences is evidence that there is SOME reason people think they have had such experiences. It is not evidence for any conclusion as to what that reason is. It is most definately NOT evidence that they did, in fact, have some sort of supernatural experience.
 
Iacchus said:
It is more than enough evidence to leave the door open to the possibility that they did.
Click to expand...

Sure, but there is plenty of evidence that people lie, have delusions, or make mistakes on the subject all the time. So until some evidence of the supernatural turns up, when someone claims to have had a supernatural expereince, I have no choice but to ask myself "Which is more likely, that they are lying, deluded or wrong or that they really did have some sort of brush witht he supernatural". Since there is plenty of evidence for "lying,deluded, or wrong" and none for "really supernatural" I have no choice but to conclude that the first choice is the most likely. SHow me convincing evience for the second and I'll gladly change my mind.
 
I'm not asking you to change your mind, just not dismiss it outright as if there was no evidence.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Since there is plenty of evidence for "lying,deluded, or wrong" and none for "really supernatural" I have no choice but to conclude that the first choice is the most likely.
Click to expand...
And, if none of these people were "lying, deluded, or wrong?" how could you tell? The claim still remains, and can't be dismissed entirely because of this.
 
Iacchus said:
And, if none of these people were "lying, deluded, or wrong?" How could you tell? The claim still remains, and can't be dismissed entirely because of this.
Click to expand...


BUt thats not the case; take ghosts for instance. I can point to cases where it can be established that the person claiming to have seen a ghost was lying, deluded, or wrong. I can point to none where it can be established that a person claiming to have seen a ghost was actually contacted by the spirit of a dead person. At BEST I can point to a few cases where I can only say, "I don't know what they saw" but "I don't know" <> "They saw a ghost".
 
Nyarlathotep said:
BUt thats not the case; take ghosts for instance. I can point to cases where it can be established that the person claiming to have seen a ghost was lying, deluded, or wrong.
Click to expand...
According to you then, I am either lying, deluded, or wrong, and there's no room for the possibility that I may not be. Case closed.
 
Iacchus said:
According to you then, I am either lying, deluded, or wrong, and there's no room for the possibility that I may not be. Case closed.
Click to expand...


Case closed, but not because I won't accept any other possibility, but because the possibility you are wrong has been shown to be a viable one, but you have provided no evidence to show yourself right.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Case closed, but not because I won't accept any other possibility, but because the possibility you are wrong has been shown to be a viable one, but you have provided no evidence to show yourself right.
Click to expand...
There was a time when I didn't believe in any of these things either but, since I have nothing more than my own personal experience to offer on the matter, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. ;)
 
Iacchus said:
And, because I have had shared a similar experience and, am willing to attest to this, regardless of what anyone else has to say about it, you are mistaken. I'm not basing it upon what others have experienced, I'm basing it upon my own. Which isn't to say others can't share similar experiences, because they do.
Click to expand...

Then why bring up "people throughout human history" at all, if your argument rests on your own experience?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom