Jobar

Steven:
Of course, for we compatibilists, there is no problem here at all.


And the rest of us still think you are claiming that parrot is just resting.

Which rather verifies the problem noted in the OP...

Koyaanisqatsi

And there is yours, since you're obviously not understanding what I argued and have glibly responded to the wrong argument. My response was demonstrating the fallacy of you claiming "special pleading" all the time. For me to be guilty of "special pleading," I would have to be arguing that the universe was created by Allah and you would have to be arguing that the universe was created by Yahweh.

Special pleading only applies to like arguments.

It is impossible for you to "verify" that only two apples are on the table when there are five. As for "believing me," that is irrelevant. The five apples are an objective fact; i.e., they exist independently of what you do or do not believe about their existence.

Unless, once again, you are going to argue that there is no such thing as an objectively existing universe; i.e., it exists independently of what you do or do not believe about its existence, which, again would mean that you are arguing that you are the solipsist.

Either you accept the evidence quite literally all around you that an objective universe exists or you do not, which ipso facto means you are arguing that you are the solipsist, rendering your responses to my posts a profound non-sequitur. If only you exist and everything else is a figment of your imagination, then why engage in any kind of debate (or conversation) at all?

So, again, I'll ask you, which is it that you are going to argue? That an objective universe exists independently of your mind and therefore five apples are on the table, or that no objective universe exists and you're the solipsist and the five apples (and, by logical extension, the entirety of existence) are only figments of your imagination?

It is not possible to "change" one's "position," since the objective existence of those five apples is not a "position;" it is an objective fact that one can either rationally affirm or irrationally deny.



It was "necessarily written" by me, because I wrote it.

You can "say" whatever you want. The question is, can you prove your claim? If you're just going to argue, "I can say whatever I want to say" (i.e., the "I'm taking my ball and going home" childishness) then by all means, enjoy. This won't change the fact that you would be demonstrably, objectively incorrect that only two apples are on the table, when in fact there are five.

That's what it means to exist in an objective reality; existence is not dependent upon your perception of it. So, again, you can say there are only two apples, but you would be easily proved incorrect by simply counting the apples (i.e., examining and verifying the evidence for the claim).

It would be physically impossible for you to demonstrate that there are only two apples, when in fact there are five (i.e., prove your claim that there are only two apples).

Again, if you wish to argue the "I'm taking my ball and going home" childishness, then by all means, have at it and enjoy. That won't change the fact that there are five apples on the table and your claim that there are only two is demonstrably invalid.

That would be physically impossible (barring brain damage). Here, I'll demonstrate by substituting ampersands for the apples: &, &, &, &, &. Count them. There are a total of five ampersands, not two.

Thus, what you say is irrelevant and demonstrably incorrect. If you choose not to acknowledge this, then, again, you would be in denial at best, mentally incapacitated in some manner at worst.

Then they would be guilty of the same denial and/or mental abnormality as you are.

It isn't "my" conclusion; it is the conclusion, based upon the evidence provided. A total of five ampersands exist, therefore there is only one (valid) conclusion to arrive at.

What presuppositions would those be and what has "popular opinion" got to do with anything?

I see only someone desperately clinging to a painfully invalid (and childish) argument. There are not only two apples on the table, just as there are not only two ampersands in what I typed above and will retype here to reiterate: &, &, &, &, &.

Now, if you're mentally incapable of counting to five, that's one thing; but barring that, to demonstrate that there are only two ampersands in that set of five ampersands is physically impossible.

You're more than welcome to try in order to actually prove your claim and not just obstinately repeat that you can say whatever you want to say, no matter what the evidence proves to the contrary, as that is just (literally) childish stupidity and you can, indeed, take your ball and go home.

Here, again, is the set of five ampersands for you to prove that there are only two in the set: &, &, &, &, &.

&, &, &, &, &. You have been proved wrong.

And kindly stop trying to rewrite the argument by ommitting the word "only" before "two apples." You are arguing that a set of five total apples is actually a set of only two apples, not that two apples objectively exist among the set of five total apples.

Your claim was that there are only two apples on the table and not five.

Nice try, but no dice. You will not be allowed to disengenuously change your claim that a set of five total apples is actually a set of only two apples.

Because there are five. &, &, &, &, &. See how that works?

No, it is not. &, &, &, &, &. Count them. If you only count two, then you either have the cognitive ability of an idiot (literally), or you are simply childishly clinging to an argument you know to be false, or you're simply too immature to acknowledge that you are clinging to an argument you know to be false.

Those are (literally) the only three conclusions, IMO, that can be drawn from your continued adherence to this demonstrable nonsense, which, again IMO, is bordering on the pathetic, if not plunging head first with arms at your sides to further reduce the drag.

Prove that the set of five ampersands ("&, &, &, &, &") only contains two ampersands or concede that your argument is invalid.



Well, I tell you what, if you can demonstrate that the set of five ampersands only contains two ampersands and can get anyone here to agree with your demonstration, then we'll take it from there, yes?

Here, I'll type the set of five ampersands again for you to demonstrate to everyone that the set only contains two ampersands: "&, &, &, &, &."

Have at it. Note, of course, that you are constrained to deal with the entire set of five, so simply typing "&, &" will not demonstrate your claim, since that is not the set of five ampersands.

Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. Nobody cares about "perhaps," so prove your claim or concede it to be false.

Demonstrate that the set of five ampersands only contains two ampersands.

Only the ability to count to five.

Do you have some sort of special dyslexia where you are incapable of reading and understanding the word "only?" Yes, I can personally verify that there are five ampersands/apples due to my ability to count to five. There is also the objective evidence of the five ampersands/apples that allow me to personally verify my ability to correctly count to five.

So far, you only have personally verifiable evidence of two (i.e., you only have your claim that there are not five apples, but only two).

I have proved my ability to count to five by presenting to you the objectively existing set of five ampersands ("&, &, &, &, &"). You have yet to prove your ability to somehow change those five into only two.

Here, I'll post the set of five ampersands once again so that you can prove your claim that there are only two: "&, &, &, &, &."

I'm glad you felt you had to say that.

If you mean that I have a presupposition of integrity and maturity, then guilty as charged.



Are there a total of five ampersands in the following set of five ampersands or not? "&, &, &, &, &"

Normal, what's the point of this stupidity? Are there a total of five ampersands in the following set of five ampersands or not? "&, &, &, &, &"

"Authority on objectivty?" What the hell are you talking about? Do I or do I not exist independently of your mind?

Rationally obtained.

No shit? What has that got to do with your pointless adherence to a demonstrably false non-argument; an argument that is predicated on the non-objective existence of the universe; a condition that you granted was not the case?

Demonstrated perfectly by your childish reiteration of a baseless claim that you are not capable of proving.

Are there a total of five ampersands in the following set of five ampersands or not? "&, &, &, &, &"

Prove your claim or concede your argument.

Only two, was your claim and it is physically impossible for you to "verify" it.

Now please tell me you are going to say, "I can verify it to myself," and take your ball and go home, thereby verifying to everyone else that you're simply being disengenuous and have no intellectual integrity.

You claimed that there are only two apples on the table and not five. Now prove your claim to everyone here by substituting the set of five ampersands for the set of five apples.

"&, &, &, &, &." I have just verified, once again, that there are five.



Great, yet another equivocation of the word "belief."

As you no doubt are aware, religious belief is typically defined as "faith;" the acceptance of something to be true absent or in spite of evidence to the contrary, that would demonstrate the veracity of the claim (i.e., accepting it is true because one is told to accept that it is true even if there is evidence that would prove that it is not or can not be true).

Aka, necessarily irrational belief.

In the case of being able to correctly count five apples/ampersands, however, there is nothing necessarily irrational in the "belief" that one can count to five; nor is there anything necessarily irrational in the "belief" that there is an objective universe to support the objective existence of those five apples/ampersands in order to correctly count them. The evidence is abundant, compelling, independently verifiable, and falsifiable.

Here, I'll demonstrate it again: "&, &, &, &, &." There is nothing necessarily irrational about concluding that the set of five ampersands contains no more, no less than five ampersands.

Thus, no irrationally based belief system is required to accept the number of apples/ampersands in the same way that an irrationally based belief system is required (even mandated) to accept the existence of, at least, the christian god; i.e., there is nothing about the set of five ampersands that requires me to accept it as true, simply because I have been told to accept it as true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Happy now? Now please do not continue to equivocate the religious concept of "belief" (i.e., "faith"), with demonstrating something to be true based on the evidence; not in spite of the evidence.

You have no argument. You have only a deliberately disengenuous attempt to equivocate the concept of "faith" with the process of establishing the veracity of a truth claim based on the evidence, not in spite of it.

Once again, we are back to my original observation regarding the irrational nature of the theist presuppositions.

As well as a detailed deconstruction as to how your argument is little more than a disengenuous attempt to illogically rationalize the irrational presuppositions of theistic beliefs, but then, why would I expect you to actually address anything salient, considering this is clearly not your goal?

In your mind, apparently, irrationally accepting something to be true in spite of the evidence is equivalent to rationally determining something to be true based on the evidence. Thus, you do, indeed, have no more justification for believing in Jesus (or Allah or Yahweh or the IPU, etc.) than you do Santa Clause (or Allah or Yahweh or the IPU, etc.)



You stated directly that you were making a solipsist presuppo... You know what? Fuck this noise. What's the point?

If you want to argue that it is rational to simply declare, "In an objective universe, I can prove that Koy typed only two ampersands in spite of the evidence that he actually typed five and no one can prove me wrong because everyone has presuppositions and I can say anything I want to say," or whatever pointless nonsense you're flip flopping on, then be my guest. You will only continue to affirm my initial observation regarding the cognitive dissonance of theist beliefs and the manner in which their thinking is hopelessly skewed from the git go as well as demonstrate to all how such skewed thinking proves that your god could not possibly exist, for if it did, you would never have claimed, "I can prove there are only two apples on the table in spite of the fact that there are actually five."

Chasing after your equivocations has been a profound waste of my time so, at least you've demonstrated one element of the OP; though the question should now be, what's the point of positing a god if it doesn't establish objectively true states in order for you to confirm your beliefs? If you have neither the ability nor the integrity to concede the objectively true fact that the set of five ampersands contains no more, no less than five ampersands, and that this objectively true state is true in all possible worlds and therefore cannot be contravened, merely denied, then nothing you say you "believe" in has any substantive value to anybody, including and especially to yourself. How could it?

If you lack the capacity to be subordinate to objective truth, then how can you be subordinate to a god (the theological equivalence of "objective truth")? What good is a god that only exists and can only exist necessarily as a tortured figment of your own imagination?

What's the goddamned point?

:banghead: :banghead:

Normal

Koy - in the future, if you notice I'm making the same points over and over again, you don't have to re-type the whole argument. You can just say "See Above" or just plain ignore sections of my post. I'm not so immature to say "But you obviously ignored my main point that you didn't quote".

That aside, my main point is that nothing gives you authority over objective reality to state that there are five apples, apersands, or whatever. You can verify there are 5 apples, and I can verify there are only two apples. You do not have authority and I do not have authority over objective reality. It is important to make the distinction that we should only accept what is reasonable to accept, but in making this distinction we run into a tautology. What is reasonable to accept is based on a presupposition that you know what is reasonable to accept. Saying someone is a victim of circular reasoning is special pleading because you are doing the same thing with your worldview, and you have to make an argument for why your tautologies are better then another person's, which would be pretty hard since "What is reasonable to accept" is based on value judgements that are practically impossible to argue for rationally. See Objective/Subjective morality.

Koyaanisqatsi

This is incoherent. I do not require any kind of "authority over objective reality" beyond my existence within it.

How? By denying the existence of the other three apples?

Again, this is an incoherent declaration. What "authority" are you talking about?

False. "What is reasonable to accept" is based upon the analysis of the evidence of the claim; thus your tautology is flawed. At best, you should have stated, "What is reasonable to accept is based on a presupposition that what is reasonable to accept can reasonably be determined." What can "reasonably be determined" is in turn based upon the presupposition that objective reality allows for methods of reasonable determination.

It is therefore not an example of an irrational presupposition, which, if you'll recall, was my initial qualification/accusation of the theist presupposition. If objective reality is extant then it is reasonable to accept that one can reasonably determine the parameters of that objective reality. We exist within objective reality. We are therefore a part of that objective reality. How is it therefore not reasonable to accept that we can reasonably determine the objective facts of that reality?

Objective reality means that everything exists independently of our mind's perception of that existence. That means that there are, in fact, five apples/ampersands, which one can reasonably accept as true due to the rational presupposition of an objective reality. Perhaps not to an absolute standard, but since that isn't reasonable, it is moot.

False. Saying one is a victim of irrational circular reasoning is not special pleading, unless I am guilty of irrational circular reasoning in kind. There is nothing irrational about presupposing objective reality. There is more than enough compelling evidence to reasonably (and rationally) accept such a condition of existence. Indeed, the amount of the evidence and the analysis of the evidence and the falsifiability of the evidence and the independent verification of the evidence from others all demonstrate a completely rational standard for reasonable determination of the presupposition of objective reality.

I have, repeatedly, to which you have simply (irrationally) denied and/or avoided by claiming that you could prove that there are only two apples on the table, when in fact there are five.

"Morality?"

Also false as your inability to prove the claim you repeatedly stated you could demonstrates. Other than irrational obstinance, what "value judgements" preclude you from "reasonably accepting" that there are five ampersands in the following set of five ampersands: "&, &, &, &, &."?

Barring some form of brain damage (and that's not meant as an insult; but literally), what aspects of your morality are preventing you from correctly counting (or reasonably determining) the five ampersands in that set? They are right in front of your face; you have at least myself and anyone else who would also like to chime in for verification that there are, in fact, five ampersands in that set; you have a computer that, if you copied and pasted the text into a word processing program could count the number of ampersands in that set for you; and there is no moral dillemia (other than it defeats your argument) to preclude you from reasonably accepting the evidence you have before you as a reasonable standard of determining the objectively true status of exactly five ampersands in that set.

Thus, the only thing that would be unreasonable here, would be the manner in which you continue to avoid counting or acknowledging the set of five ampersands.

Again, please recall that my initial observation was that the specific problems of theistic circular reasoning come from an irrational presupposition; one that produces precisely the kind of unreasonable avoidance of reasonable standards of determination you continue to display in regard to the set of five ampersands/apples.

Further, it is irrational of you to continue to make such unreasonable claims, if you presuppose your god, since if such a god existed, objective reality would be absolutely established and there would be no need for a "reasonable" standard. It would be objectively true (as mandated by said god) that there are five ampersands/apples. It would literally be unquestionable that the set of five ampersands/apples contain no more, no less than five aa's (again, barring mental malfunction of some kind), since objective reality would be absolutely obtained through the factual, objective existence of god.

No matter how you slice it (and as I stated initially), the theist presupposition results in an irrational (and incoherent) "worldview," predicated upon and maintained by a cognitively dissonant (i.e., faulty) circular reasoning.

Your refusal to either count the set of five ampersands or prove your claim that there are not five ampersands in the set of five ampersands, rather only two, IMO, amply demonstrates my point regarding the effects of the irrational theist presupposition.

By your own standard of reasonableness alone does your argument fail.

Wyrdsmyth

Because there's too much at stake. Even if they feel you "won" the argument, they may feel like they just didn't do a good job or have the right answers. They'll make some excuse. The problem isn't with the concept of God, but with our measly, finite human minds... God's ways are inscrutable to men... and so on.

Very seldom does anyone concede defeat, in a formal debate. But I think the debates are worth having, for other people to read and make up their own minds about the issues being discussed.

Jobar

Normal, it's true that we atheists make a presupposition, but you are wrong to think that it is "my beliefs are true."

The single necessary presupp we all make, believers and unbelievers alike, is by and large our senses are not lying to us. IOW, our perceptions of the world are not just virtual, but actual; we are not in the Matrix. Despite the limitations of our senses, they are reporting a veritable, objective, external world.

This is not something that can be indubitably proven; we may all be solipsist maniacs, or trapped in some Matrix-like reality which has no relation to what we perceive. But it's useless to assume that; we still have only our senses to deal with the world, and they seem to do yeoman duty except in extreme cases (a blow to the head, powerful drugs, brain damage due to disease, etc.) We must take care to verify that our perceptions are not being influenced by these things no matter what we believe.

It's not impossible that if you and Koy were put in a room with a table between you, that you would see two apples on the table, and Koy would see five- because there are ways to trick our perceptions (mirrors in this case.) But if you both go to the table and touch the apples, you will discover the mirror and see how you have been tricked- and then both of you will agree that there are five apples. (Or two, depending on the placement of the mirrors.)

But when the disputed entity is God, there's simply no way to examine it with our senses. It's just words; and as long as there are people like you who insist on claiming the reality of something unconfirmable, the argument is insoluble.