• 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.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

Beth said:
The way we establish whether something exists independently of ourselves is through the consistency of observations by different human beings. That is, if an object was observed to have the same properties regardless of who observed it, then it can be assumed that that object has an existance independent of those humans who examined it. When the descriptions differ significantly from one person to another, such as for gods and ghosts, we don't feel as confident because the disparate observations alter what conclusions can drawn from them.
In general, the more people that independently observe something and the more those observations agree regarding the properties of that thing, the greater the confidence we have that the object exists separately from ourselves. Using that same criteria, it's reasonable to conclude numbers, such as pi, have an existance independent of the humans who examine them.
Click to expand...
I don’t pretend to have a definite answer either. But regarding the criteria for determining rocks and concepts to exist independently, I think there’s still a difference.

Learning, recognizing and observing are actions (verbs), in a similar fashion as conceptualizing. I don’t think the criteria are exactly the same here. We seem to have “extra-conceptual” evidence of rocks, which is to say: we can still be hit by something that we usually conceptualize as a rock (here the conceptualization is a further, different, action). We don’t have such “extra-conceptual” evidence for numbers. In order to observe them, we must first perform the action; every single time … we must always think and conceptualize. Moreover, we must learn to think in a particular way in order to perform the action.

We don’t have to create rocks in order to be hit by them. But it seems that we must conceptualize (i.e., create) in order to have, well… concepts. Thus it seems to me there’s at least an asymmetry between the criteria we user for determining that rocks exist vis-á-vis concepts existing (independently from our thinking).
 
lupus_in_fabula said:
I don’t pretend to have a definite answer either. But regarding the criteria for determining rocks and concepts to exist independently, I think there’s still a difference.
Click to expand...
Certainly there are differences between them. I never meant to imply there wasn't. The question is whether one of those differences is independent existance.
Learning, recognizing and observing are actions (verbs), in a similar fashion as conceptualizing. I don’t think the criteria are exactly the same here. We seem to have “extra-conceptual” evidence of rocks, which is to say: we can still be hit by something that we usually conceptualize as a rock (here the conceptualization is a further, different, action). We don’t have such “extra-conceptual” evidence for numbers. In order to observe them, we must first perform the action; every single time … we must always think and conceptualize.
Moreover, we must learn to think in a particular way in order to perform the action.
Click to expand...
While it's true we don't 'conceptualize', we do require a functioning neural system in order to be aware that we have been hit by a rock. A dead person won't notice being struck by rocks.

We don’t have to create rocks in order to be hit by them. But it seems that we must conceptualize (i.e., create) in order to have, well… concepts. Thus it seems to me there’s at least an asymmetry between the criteria we user for determining that rocks exist vis-á-vis concepts existing (independently from our thinking).
Click to expand...

Yes. There are other asymmetries as well. For example, in order to verify that a physical thing exists, you must be close enough in space/time to physically observe it. Concepts can be 'observed' in any space/time you are occupying.

I don't have any answers either. I just find the questions interesting.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
If you're just going to troll there is no point.
Click to expand...


Frankly, I think that your posts in this thread have been off-topic and tedious. This, mixed with your bizarre "devil's advocate" stance, has taken this thread way off course in a way that I regarded long-ago as trolling.

Much of this thread provides excruciating evidence as to why philosophy is worthless when it done badly.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
You have it backwards. Show me the evidence that this 'ultimate substance' exists. My asking for evidence does not prove that it exists. I don't see how you work that one out. If I ask you for evidence of leprechauns does that prove that they exist?
Click to expand...

Here's your answer.

lupus_in_fabula said:
:

But anyway … even there: the act of assuming is the evidence.
Click to expand...

So if I assume leprechauns exist that's the evidence for their existence.
 
tsig said:
Here's your answer.



So if I assume leprechauns exist that's the evidence for their existence.
Click to expand...

I just assumed that I won two million Euros in the Belgian State lottery. Let me just check my bank account.........damn, it's not there! What went wrong?
 
goat fodder

dafydd said:
I didn't foresee that. I should take Limbo's correspondence course.
Click to expand...

I tried it but the sheep and goats ate me out of house and home and the Trickster effect was always causing random events to happen. I never knew if I was going to work,church or slavery, driving a car, riding a horse or fleeing a mob.
 
tsig said:
Here's your answer.

So if I assume leprechauns exist that's the evidence for their existence.
Click to expand...

Nope. It was a reply in regards to evidence for ”something” existing.

I did some sloppy reading of the previous posts, and so I thought the request was for evidence that something exists. That’s why I called it a bizarre request, btw.

This:
Ichneumonwasp said:
Many people throughout the history of philosophy. The evidence is that something exists. We know that something exists. The definition of substance refers to what actually exists, what its nature is. This isn't even a controversial point, so I don't understand the objection to existence.
Click to expand...
dafydd said:
What evidence?
Click to expand...

I should have realized that the question “What evidence?” was in regard to the particular "What evidence … of a final substance". But in that clarified case too, I think I agree with Ichne ("The definition of substance refers to what actually exists"). Call it substance, action, geryewoiyrpoiq, whatever … the existence of it seems to be quite uncontroversial.
 
tsig said:
I think therefore I am.

In order to think you must first exist and to exist is to be, so all that's being said here is

I am therefore I am.
Click to expand...

What you did was you took the assumption (equating thinking with being) and used it on the assumption itself. What's that supposed to prove? :confused:
 
Complexity said:
Frankly, I think that your posts in this thread have been off-topic and tedious. This, mixed with your bizarre "devil's advocate" stance, has taken this thread way off course in a way that I regarded long-ago as trolling.

Much of this thread provides excruciating evidence as to why philosophy is worthless when it done badly.
Click to expand...

Ichneumonwasp was debating the fallacious position put forward by Piggy that God/s do not exist. He put forward the case for this in a precise and expert way which was appreciated and enjoyed by many of the readers of this thread including myself.

Rather than counter his arguments in any way you ride rough shod through the thread casting aspertions in the direction of posters defending the agnostic position again without any reasoned argument. Or even an understanding of what rational argument means.

Followed by a false accusation of trolling in a course, scathing, mocking and disrespectfull manner.

If there is anyone posting in this thread who comes close to fulfilling the the label of Troll it is you sir.


Is the esteemed Jref forum to be brought down to the lowest common denominator by the course seemingly ignorant language of a few persistent contentless posters?

While a progression of intelligent well spoken thinkers who actually have an interest in these subjects. become hounded and bored into submission and abandon the site?

Is the fate of the jref forum to be Troll city?
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with Ichneumonwasp's logic around 'a fundamental substance' though I'm not s huge fan of the language.

Stuff exists. That stuff must be made of something. Those somethings are made of smaller somethings. At some point you get to the basic building blocks and we can call that a fundamental substance if we must.

Where I think we go off on a tangent is where he gets into 'mind' being a substance and that therefore being a possible way out for a God explanation. I don't even know what 'mind' means in this context (and i've asked more than once) and simply assuming that if there is more than one basic building block then the 2nd one will be some magical mind substance is not in the least bit scientific.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Fine. You win. I'm leaving JREF for good.
Click to expand...

I hope you will reconsider.

I for one appreciated your contribution. Your clear understanding of the issues being posed in these threads was a breath of fresh air. When I was beginning to notice the bitter taste of indignation, ignorance and disrespect in in the back of my throat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom