Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

twyvel I am entirely in agreement with your nondualism and my argument about "an ultimate observer" is what I think you require, not me , in order to allow for the possibility of a "God". Apologies if that part of the argument was not clear.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

If you are allowed to make up rules as you go you can justify any conclusion.

One thing I really should mention is that this is precisely how people assert gods. And this is why the impossible certainty factor must be considered in order to contruct burden of proof. Without this there is no meaningful conclusion to anything.

Except that my views come from observation and learning about the physical world. Observation of constancies. I'm not making up rules, I'm observing things and putting a name to them.

0 Replies

Observing a trend and then creating a rule out of it is to make up a rule.

Trends are not rules. It is impossible to "observe a constancy". So you merely have to assume that what you think is constant is. Thereby indirectly assuming that you are right.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Observing a trend and then creating a rule out of it is to make up a rule.

Trends are not rules. It is impossible to "observe a constancy". So you merely have to assume that what you think is constant is. Thereby indirectly assuming that you are right.

like I said, assuming constancies is the basis of knowledge. If you can point out some constancies that refute my constancies I will listen to your evidence.

(By the way I didn't invent my constancies. But the observations I make in this physical world confirm those constancies.)

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

like I said, assuming constancies is the basis of knowledge.

Sez you. And like I sez, you are just assuming axioms to then rely on them to "prove" and "disprove".

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

like I said, assuming constancies is the basis of knowledge.

Sez you. And like I sez, you are just assuming axioms to then rely on them to "prove" and "disprove".

I am. And that is the basis of logic and science. Which is why (as stated earlier) you can make whatever claims you want to invent for your dwarf, but if you refuse to assume any constants in the universe you can't use logic or science, so you can't prove your view.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

And that is the basis of logic and science.

And again, no it is not.

Quote:

Which is why (as stated earlier) you can make whatever claims you want to invent for your dwarf, but if you refuse to assume any constants in the universe you can't use logic or science, so you can't prove your view.

You make little sense. Dwarfy is all about assuming constants.

For example, he's always right. He says you are wrong ergo you are wrong (remember, according to you this is "the basis of logic and science").

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

And that is the basis of logic and science.

And again, no it is not.

Logic and science are not based on assuming constants?

Why not?

When you disagree you should substantiate why.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Logic and science are not based on assuming constants?

Why not?

When you disagree you should substantiate why.

Portal, the claim that assuming constants is the basis of knowledge, logic and science is yours.

You provide no sunstantiation for this whatsoever.

I call BS on your claim and you ask me to prove a negative. Rolling Eyes

Portal, I sincerely think you do know know much about logic at all. Why are you shirking burden of proof and demanding that I prove a negative?

You claimed that assumption of constants was the basis of science, knowledge and logic. You should substantiate your claim.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

Logic and science are not based on assuming constants?

Why not?

When you disagree you should substantiate why.

Portal, the claim that assuming constants is the basis of knowledge, logic and science is yours.

You provide no sunstantiation for this whatsoever.

I call BS on your claim and you ask me to prove a negative.

Portal, I sincerely think you do know know much about logic at all. Why are you shirking burden of proof and demanding that I prove a negative?

You claimed that assumption of constants was the basis of science, knowledge and logic. You should substantiate your claim.

Craven, you constantly shift the burden of proof. You tell anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints that they are incorrect, without bothering to tell them why. It makes for a substanceless conversation.

constants are things that we observe in the physical world. We make generalizations about those things - learning. We call things that appear a certain way "orange." We categorize in order to learn.

When we (humans) study the earth we are finding data, then translating that data into information we can use and understand. this information is a generalization of that data into constants. For example, "If I drop this apple, it will fall." then, "If I drop any apple, it will fall." You are assuming constants based on data findings as long as the data does not at any point contradict those constants.

Philosophy is a rational mode of thinking, and is also based on constants within our knowledge of the universe (even language is based on constants - groupings of things and ideas into spoken symbols.)

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Craven, all -you- do is shift the burden of proof.

Portal, you are lying. I quite frequently lay out your logical ineptness in great detail for you.

Furthermore burden of proof has criteria, it's not about passing the buck. You made a claim and the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it. Not to ask me to prove a negative about your claim.

Asking me to disprove it is to shift your burden of proof.

Quote:

You constantly tell anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints that they are incorrect, without bothering to tell them why.

And again, this is a lie. I very frequently detail your brainfarts with clear explanations and multiple examples.

You have a faulty memory.

Quote:

constants are things that we observe in the physical world.

So are apples. This is a meaningless definitional attempt.

Quote:

We make generalizations about those things - learning. We call things that appear a certain way "orange." We categorize in order to learn.

No duh.

Quote:

When we (humans) study the earth we are finding data, then translating that data into information we can use and understand. this information is a generalization of that data into constants.

Bullshit. You are making a leap of faith here. Substantiate it.

Quote:

For example, "If I drop this apple, it will fall." then, "If I drop any apple, it will fall." You are assuming constants based on data findings as long as the data does not at any point contradict those constants.

This is where you dive head-first into sheer absurdity.

1) Your example is not a constant. Apples have been dropped in places where they did not fall.

2) The lack of contradictory evidence is not evidence that it does not exist.

Quote:

Philosophy is a rational mode of thinking, and is also based on constants...

Sez you. Without fulfilling the burden of proof for the claim. You merely regurgitate philosobabble.

Citing clichés is not much in way of an argument Portal.

Quote:

...within our knowledge of the universe (even language is based on constants - groupings of things and ideas into spoken symbols.)

Please tell me this wasn't your attempt at fulfilling your burden of proof. Laughing

0 Replies

so you disagree with somthing... that you need me to explain.

To disagree with somthing you have to know what that somthing is, and you disagreed with what I said. Then you asked me to explain my comment, which puzzles me because you would need to understand it in order to disagree with it. Which is why you should have told me why what I said was false - instead of both saying you disagreed with it -and- that I hadn't provided enough evidence.

The example you gave was that apples have been dropped in places where they did not fall.

That is a step in the right direction - you gave evidence to support your claim. however, this does not disprove what I was discussing - constancy. The fact that apples have been dropped in places where they did not fall is a constancy. You deduct why they did not fall in some places and fell in others. Then you can conclude that apples dropped in places where they did not fall would continue to not fall in those places. I honestly cannot understand how you view learning, science, and logic if not in constancies. If it was inconstant, we wouldn't be learning. We wouldn't have names for the things we learn.

0 Replies

I have no proof of the fact that I have observed scientific experiments that test seeming constants.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I have no proof of the fact that I have observed scientific experiments that test seeming constants.

name one, and I'll show you how it is an assumption of constant.

By the way, mathematics also assumes constants.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

so you disagree with somthing... that you need me to explain.

I have explained. For example I diagreed with your lie that "all -I- do is shift the burden of proof."

I brought up examples where I explained why your logic was flawed in great detail.

I explained to you that when you assert something and demand that I assume the burden of proof to prove the negative of your unsupported assertions you are shifting burden of proof.

I explained how keeping the burden of proof with you, insofar as it relates to your assertion is what the very notion of burden of proof is.

I will explain, as you request, even further.

burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion.

You try to make assertions while ignoring burden of proof and then demand that your opponent prove the negative if they do not agree.

And, Portal, that's not how burden of proof works.

Should you request any further explanations I'll be happy to provide them.

Quote:

To disagree with somthing you have to know what that somthing is, and you disagreed with what I said. Then you asked me to explain my comment, which puzzles me because you would need to understand it in order to disagree with it.

This ("you asked me to explain my comment") is another lie Portal. I did not ask you to explain your comments.

I said that the burden of proof was on you to substantiate your assertion.

This was a reaction to your efforts to shift burden of proof. You said I should "substantiate" the negative of your assertion.

Now you are simply lying and saying it is about not "explaining" it. This is falsehood Portal.

I understand your comments perfectly and I call bullshit on them.

It it your responsibility to substantiate your assertions. And to try to redefine this as being about not explaining and understanding is deceit.

I did not say that I didn't understand your comments and that they therefore need explanation.

I said that your efforts to shift the burden of proof onto your detractors is dishonest, and doubly so when you raise burden of proof issues with them.

Quote:

Which is why you should have told me why what I said was false - instead of both saying you disagreed with it -and- that I hadn't provided enough evidence.

Incorrect. My position is that you are simply making vague axioms that are meaningless. You have failed to support them.

Your argument is the meaningless claim that "knowledge, logic and science" are based on assumption of constants.

It's as meaningless a proposed axiom as to say that it's all based on books.

You failed to substantiate this your assertion and then tried to compell me to prove the negative of it.

Quote:

The example you gave was that apples have been dropped in places where they did not fall.

That is a step in the right direction - you gave evidence to support your claim. however, this does not disprove what I was discussing - constancy.

Once again, Portal, burden of proof rests with the one making the assertions.

You made an assertion that you could not substantiate. You are again trying to get me to disprove what you've taken the liberty to assume is true in this discussion.

To "explain", it does not work like this:

1) Portal makes claim, we automagically assume it is true.
2) Craven must prove the negative of the claim.

Quote:

If it was inconstant, we wouldn't be learning. We wouldn't have names for the things we learn.

False, using this logic there'd be no name for "inconsistency" Portal.

0 Replies

Craven, you take the bits and pieces of my arguments that you think make your argument look better (while leaving others off) and tell me over and over again how incorrect I am and why I am incorrect without actually saying anything.

I ask you again, to either
1. ask me to explain further on specific points (tell me I haven't provided enough evidence)
or
2. tell me why you disagree with points made.

Otherwise we are not having a discussion I find useful.

0 Replies

I said I had no proof, Portal. What I have is memories of experiments I ran based on some expectations from lengthy past data, with results that not only didn't meet expectations at all, but sparked many new questions that sparked more experimentation which resulted in new understanding. What is given in an experiment may turn out not to be given.

I admit I jumped from 'constant' to 'given' but the phenomenon of counting on something in one's theorizing being occasionally problematic would seem to me to hold true.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Craven, you take the bits and pieces of my arguments that you think make your argument look better (while leaving others off)

This is typical of disagreement Portal. Certain parts that are less defensible tend to be disagreed with at a greater frequency than their counterparts.

So as not to fil to cite examples I offer the following.

Portal says Craven is wicked awesome in bed but that he looks like a horse's ass.

Craven would probably be inclined to dispute the horses ass part.

Likewise when you claim the falsehood that I do not substantiate my assertions I challenge your claim.

This is a normal function of disagreement Portal, certain things are objected to more readily than others and it is natural for the less defensible claims you make to be challenged.

Quote:

I ask you again, to either
1. ask me to explain further on specific points (tell me I haven't provided enough evidence)
or
2. tell me why you disagree with points made.

I shall do so again.

You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion that knowledge is based on assuming constancy.
You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion I never substantiate my disagreements.
You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion that I never explain my arguments.
You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion that logic is based on assuming constancy.
You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion that you can safely assume the specific constancies that you assume in order to assert that you can disprove Dwarfy (who says he might start to loathe you as much as mustard).
You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion that science is based on assuming constants.
You have not provided enough/any evidence for your assertion that to have an effect in the physical realm the entity must be physical.

That's the short list. Now as I have already said, there are a few of those assumptions that I'd agree with. But this is no way disproves Dwarfy.

Now let me explain the purpose of Dwarfy. Dwarfy represents the facility with which a circular argument can be contructed and then made all-powerful to defy disproof.

The facility with which such notions that can't be disproven are made is why things like burden of proof exist.

If you are prepared to assume rules in your efforts to disprove a beligerant diety like Dwarfy you simply fail to address Dwarfy's cicrcular validation and he continues to decree a ban on mustard and demand tribute.

Now you can remain agnostic about Dwarfy if you wish. There's really no way to prove or disprove his existence in absolute fashion.

What you can do is decide that on an acceptable level of improbability, to replace the impossible certainty.

This is a decision that needs to be made daily. With each step forward on a sidewalk we can't know with certainty that the ground will not cave in and swallow us whole.

So we make assumptions based on many factors. If you'd said that in science, and logic (but not knowledge as this is nonsensical) reductionism and reliance on some assumed axiom is needed I'd agree.

But not with constancy. That is the kind of thing that tends to trip up logic a lot.

So when you declare yourself an adwarfist I think you should acknowledge the impossibility of disproving such omipotent theories and place the burden of proof where it belongs: with the one asserting Dwarfy's existence.

Don't make up rules like that all things must be physical as Dwarfy by his nature is a theory that pays very little attention to such rules.

When you try to declare Dwarfy as false based on assumed axioms you just give Dwarfy his next lead.

"Nobody's seen him? Oh, that's because he's invisible."

"You say he has to be physical and observable to have an impact on the observable world? Um.. no, he's like omnipotent and stuff. He's from a whole different world, the um... spirit world! Yes, that's the ticket."

"You say you saw me admitting to the invention of Dwarfism to collect tribute? Well that's probably evil dwarf Stan. You know, they had a huge argument about which human orfice should be used for reproduction and Dwarfy kicked Stan out of Utopia. Remember that Stan can control your mind, so don't listen to him. Have faith and don't sit around wondering about it because an idle mind is Stan's favorite haven."

See how it works? It can go forever without burden of proof.

So when you try to disprove him, don't mess up with burden of proof youself. After all, burden of proof is the only defense against this kind of lie.

Does that explain the point? If you get to assume axioms then so does the Dwarfist. And if the assumption is omnipotence and disregard for burden of proof when making up wild support for a wild claim you are already in a useless discussion.

Call on burden of proof, don't let me get away with my intellectual dishonesty about Dwarfy.

This is why when you fail to uphold your burden of proof I call you on it. It's the only defense against meta-theories that are self-validating.

0 Replies

i want craven at a bush/kerry debate and call them on the carpet when either of them makes a false statement.

i can hear it now, "mr. president/senator kerry, that's bullshit" Laughing

0 Replies

maybe dwarfy could do something to the one who lies the most, a plague of mustard or sumptin"

0 Replies

Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know