In the mood for a fight? I am!

Frank Apisa wrote:

(Another personal note: Ein, if you are still around...join in.)

I don't really have anything to add to my argument. The last contested point was over wether a notion known to have been made up was less likely to coincide with reality than it would have been if it never had been thought of.

I maintain that that the source of a piece of information can only constitute evidence against the piece of information checking out if the source is thought to investigate its claims in order to insure that information would not check out. In any other scenario a non-credible source counts merely as the absence of a credible source, and thus an absence of evidence supporting the piece of information.

I doubt this will go anywhere as I have made this argument before with no luck. I really do not know how else to make it.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

There is wisdom in your words. I agree with some of what I think I understood: That the only things we can justifyably assert as facts are statements like "my opinion is..."

That is not what I said...and definitely not what I mean. The distinction is subtle...but the distinction is there.

Quote:

But statements like these cannot be taken as facts

I agree. But as I said...I never said that.

If you want to express and opinion....express and opinion. If you want to express a guess...express a guess.

Nothing wrong with expressing and opinion...or a guess.

And you can certainly assert "it is a fact that my guess is..."

That does not make the matter of the guess a fact...merely the fact that you state you are making a guess is the fact.

(I will acknowledge that I cannot know that in fact, you are actually making that guess...or have that opinion. But we have to accept that if a person claims to have a particular opinion...they in fact have it....or we could never discuss anything. That does not reflect in any way on your statement that "There is no god" is a fact. Once again, if you had said, It is my opinion that there is no god...and it is a fact that that is my opinion....we would never have had a discussion...because of course you can have an opinion.)

Quote:

...and believed by others

We will never get anywhere if you use the word "believe" or "belief."

Please don't use those words in this discussion...or we will always have to come to a stop to discuss what you are talking about.

Figure out beforehand exactly what you mean by "believe" or "belief" and use that word instead...so that I do not have to ask each time.

Quote:

Just because Ein says his opinion is "so-and-so" doesn't necessarily mean it is.

It doesn't mean that the "so and so" is correct...but it most certainly and assuredly should be accepted that "so and so is his opinion."

Let's handle what we have on the plate here...and go on to the other stuff after we finally hammer this down.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
(Another personal note: Ein, if you are still around...join in.)

I don't really have anything to add to my argument. The last contested point was over wether a notion known to have been made up was less likely to coincide with reality than it would have been if it never had been thought of.

I maintain that that the source of a piece of information can only constitute evidence against the piece of information checking out if the source is thought to investigate its claims in order to insure that information would not check out. In any other scenario a non-credible source counts merely as the absence of a credible source, and thus an absence of evidence supporting the piece of information.

I doubt this will go anywhere as I have made this argument before with no luck. I really do not know how else to make it.

No problem. I'm sure we will meet in another thread.

0 Replies

As am I.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

It doesn't mean that the "so and so" is correct...but it most certainly and assuredly should be accepted that "so and so is his opinion."

Let's handle what we have on the plate here...and go on to the other stuff after we finally hammer this down.

We are agreed that "so and so" is not necessarily correct. But I cannot agree that we should accept that "so and so" is not his opinion. It is my opinion that I have no opinions. See? It should be pretty obvious in this case that that's not really my opinion. But if you just assume I always tell the truth about my opinion, you miss this simple counterexample. I am really in the mood to break ground here, but I can't bring myself to agree that we should just accept what people say their opinions are just because they say it. But more importantly, even if we did accept that his opinion is something, this would only mean we BELIEVE something. It wouldn't mean we KNOW IT TO BE A FACT that his opinion is as such. We would just BELIEVE him when he says it. I'm not saying we should NECESSARILY disbelieve him (or reserve judgment), I'm just saying it's at our discretion. But I look forward to seeing where I'm wrong in this. It's always nice to see where the mistake crops up in a long line of algebra.

0 Replies

I'll respond to this tomorrow...but I much prefer the response you gave to Fox in the other thread to this.

But tomorrow I'll respond in depth.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
It doesn't mean that the "so and so" is correct...but it most certainly and assuredly should be accepted that "so and so is his opinion."

Let's handle what we have on the plate here...and go on to the other stuff after we finally hammer this down.

We are agreed that "so and so" is not necessarily correct.

Good!

Quote:

But I cannot agree that we should accept that "so and so" is not his opinion.

Neither can I...and that is not what I said. I said...we should accept that IT IS his opinion.

If a person says..."It is my opinion..."...we should accept that it is his/her opinion.

Otherwise, you simply cannot have a converstation.

Quote:

It is my opinion that I have no opinions. See?

C'mon...Bin. This is like the "Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it."

If you come across a person saying "It is my opinion that I have no opinions"...just walk away. You are dealing with a fool.

Quote:

It should be pretty obvious in this case that that's not really my opinion. But if you just assume I always tell the truth about my opinion, you miss this simple counterexample.

When someone uses an expression like that and means it...I will simply realize that I am talking with a fool or an insane person. And I will leave the conversation.

In the meantime...if someone says "My opinion is...."...I will assume that actually is that person's opinon.

The person may be expressing the opinion in a devil's advocate enterprise...but for the purposes of the discussion or debate, it MUST BE ACCEPTED AS THE PERSON'S OPINION.

Quote:

I am really in the mood to break ground here...

I think you are in the mood to quibble...even if it means being absurd. But I sometimes get into that mode myself, so I understand. Stay calm. It will pass.

Quote:

..., but I can't bring myself to agree that we should just accept what people say their opinions are just because they say it.

As I said...you appear to be determined to quibble...despite the absurdity of the quibbling.

Quote:

But more importantly, even if we did accept that his opinion is something, this would only mean we BELIEVE something.

No it wouldn't. It would simply mean we are, for the sake of discussion or debate, ACCEPTING what the person offers as his/her opinion...AS HIS/HER OPINION.

Quote:

It wouldn't mean we KNOW IT TO BE A FACT that his opinion is as such.

Earth calling Binny.

Just accept the goddam thing. Don't worry about whether or not you know it.

Quote:

We would just BELIEVE him when he says it.

If you want to do all this "believing" nonsense...do it. Stop trying to include me into it because I don't do it.

Quote:

I'm not saying we should NECESSARILY disbelieve him (or reserve judgment), I'm just saying it's at our discretion. But I look forward to seeing where I'm wrong in this. ]

Well...open your eyes and you will see.

Quote:

It's always nice to see where the mistake crops up in a long line of algebra.

Or in specious reasoning. :wink:

0 Replies

Sorry if I'm quibbling. But somebody somewhere is making mistakes from the ground up. And it's either me or you, so bear with me here. Can you clarify the following? By which I mean, can you rephrase it using mostly new words? This may help our cause. What exactly does accepting entail, if not either accepting as a fact or believing?

Quote:

If a person says..."It is my opinion..."...we should accept that it is his/her opinion.

If by accepting you don't mean believing or accepting as a fact, I can't wrap my head around what you mean. So what I'm asking for here is for you to use language that will expand my mind so that we can see if your opinion can fit in my head.

0 Replies

Binny

Gotta go play golf right now, but I just read you lastest reply and...

...if you want to substitute "believing" (which I translate to mean "guessing".)..or "accepting as a fact" for my "accepting"...please do.

No problem at all.

If I hear that you are ASSERTING IT AS A FACT...we will run into a problem.

All of this began...as I am sure you remember...when you ASSERTED AS A FACT THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

Had you originally said you "believe" "guess" "suppose" or are simply "accepting" that there is no God...we would not be having this discussion.

I would never have challenged any of those things.

But you ASSERTED AS A FACT...that there is no God.

I did challenge that.

And rather than simply akcnowledging that you cannot logically assert that as fact...you have been trying to avoid having to acknowledge your error.

So when you wrote:

Quote:

But somebody somewhere is making mistakes from the ground up. And it's either me or you, so bear with me here.

I understood that completely.

You are the one who is mistaken.

I have been doing my level best to show you why you are mistaken...and to give you every opportunity to do the ethical thing in a debate (which is to concede points that are made)...and you have been doing everything you can to avoid that.

Why not give up on that and make the concession.

It is the ethical thing to do.

0 Replies

I don't have much to say, but I just wanted to applaud the efforts the two of you made a page or two ago to try and keep things civil. Well done. I've immensely enjoyed reading your arguments with each other, even through the "silliness" as one of you put it.
As to a part of the argument that's probably been forgotten: I know that I don't have an invisible tail because I would feel it when I sat down, since invisible is not immaterial.

I just re-read that statement and felt insane. Good job, me.

Binny: You were, for all that I can see in this discussion, wrong in making the statement that "God does not exist. This is a fact. But I do not know this is true." or whatever your precise words were to that effect. The basic foundation of the statement "God does not exist" is illogical because he could just be hiding. It's improbable, and highly ridiculous, but it's nevertheless impossible to be sure.

Furthermore, the contradiction between "this is a fact, but I don't know if it's true" negates itself. Facts, by definition, you know are true.

Just hoping to clear the waters. Keep it up.

0 Replies

I think binny's argument is that nothing can be known beyond any doubt. He's making the case that god is "It's improbable, and highly ridiculous" as you say, and sufficiently so for it to be a fact that god does not exist, in light of what passes for facts in this world.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

I think binny's argument is that nothing can be known beyond any doubt.

I think that is your argument...not Binny's. If it is Binny's...he certainly has not proposed it in that form yet.

Quote:

He's making the case that god is "It's improbable, and highly ridiculous"...

No he is not. He is saying it is a fact!

In any case, I would love for you to make a convincing case that the existence of a god is improbable and/or highly ridiculous.

It is MY OPINION that a convincing case CANNOT be made in either direction...that the existence of a god is no more or less probable than that no gods exist. I also consider insistence that there are no gods...based on the evidence available...to be every bit as ridiculous as insistence that there is a God.

I do not know if there is a God...I do not know if there are no gods...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence available for me to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

From all indications...and from all the arguments that have come my way in both directions...it appears nobody else is in any more favorable or enlightened position on this issue.

I certainly am willing to argue (or discuss, if you prefer) any of that with you, Ein.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I think binny's argument is that nothing can be known beyond any doubt.

I think that is your argument...not Binny's. If it is Binny's...he certainly has not proposed it in that form yet.

I have gotten the impression that binny is seeking to lower the standard of evidence needed for something to be asserted as fact. Given the topic of this thread, I'll let you guess what his purpouse for doing this might be.

Quote:

Quote:
He's making the case that god is "improbable, and highly ridiculous"...

No he is not. He is saying it is a fact!

In any case, I would love for you to make a convincing case that the existence of a god is improbable and/or highly ridiculous.

I might give it another try, but not right now. I have only the one line of argument presented before on the other thread. That is, unless I wish to further pursue the dead end of your "a concept being made up constitutes evidence of the negative" falacy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is MY OPINION that a convincing case CANNOT be made in either direction...that the existence of a god is no more or less probable than that no gods exist. I also consider insistence that there are no gods...based on the evidence available...to be every bit as ridiculous as insistence that there is a God.

Frank says god/no god 50 - 50. Bookmark, BM, mark, note to self and what not.
You are on record as evaluating the probability of a god existing to be equal to the probability of it not existing. Not sure why you were so hesitant to admit this earlier, but now at least it is establised.

Quote:

I certainly am willing to argue (or discuss, if you prefer) any of that with you, Ein.

I'm sure you are. I'm thinking that maybe instead of attacking your dismissal of the invisible tail, on the grounds of it being made up, I should try to make the case that other concepts such as souls are made up too.

I might have another go at it after christmas.

0 Replies

gj ein! caught him in the act! Smile

It is my opinion that it is a fact that there is no god. I arrive at this opinion because it is improbable and ridiculous to say that there is a god. Since it is my opinion that it is a fact that there is no god, I can assert it as a fact with no logical fallacy. It is my opinion that it IS a fact. Now what justifies my opinion? The evidence (or at least that's what you like to call it). This "evidence" is the spurious origin of the proposal through shamanism and the later evolution into monotheism. As ein says, this of course is not evidence for no god. Just as the fact that I made up the tail argument is not evidence against incorporeal invisible tails.

Just as with gods, there can be no claims for invisible, incorporeal tails that have a foundation. They will all be just made up. How can I be sure of this? I can't. But if we're going to "accept" that somebody's opinion is as they say it is (even though they could be lying), the bar is very very low for facts in these parts. You can't accept what most people do, Frank. You can't accept that when you "accept" something, you're accepting it as a fact. You're believing it. Whether you want to admit it or not, you're placing faith in this way being the case. You want to pass it off as a simple "guess". But what makes you choose to "guess" one way and not another? The answer (correct me if I'm wrong): because this way seems most likely to be the case. But why? Because of your deductions. You have made a conclusion based on evidence. But why should the evidence lead to your conclusion? ... ... ... ... This is a very crucial notion, so please give it some thought... ... ... ... ... ... JUST BECAUSE! IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IT OFTEN OR ALWAYS DOES!... ... but clearly, that is not enough! Believe me, it's not. But what you and I do is: we just go on it. We have FAITH that this time, when we drop an apple will be like all the other times we drop an apple... it will fall to the earth. And DUH... of course we will change our view if it doesn't happen that way. But if we can be said to know any facts whatsoever, then it must be by simply guessing them and happening to be right. Just as I said before. Not being sure (because we guessed) but calling it a fact. Otherwise, we know NO facts.

0 Replies

But I defer to ein, as he seems more concise and precise in his argument.

0 Replies

For Binny.........with whom I agree:

Quote:

Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down

Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won't back down

Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won't back down.

Well I know what's right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

gj ein! caught him in the act!

It is my opinion that it is a fact that there is no god. I arrive at this opinion because it is improbable and ridiculous to say that there is a god. Since it is my opinion that it is a fact that there is no god, I can assert it as a fact with no logical fallacy. It is my opinion that it IS a fact. Now what justifies my opinion? The evidence (or at least that's what you like to call it). This "evidence" is the spurious origin of the proposal through shamanism and the later evolution into monotheism. As ein says, this of course is not evidence for no god. Just as the fact that I made up the tail argument is not evidence against incorporeal invisible tails.

Just as with gods, there can be no claims for invisible, incorporeal tails that have a foundation. They will all be just made up. How can I be sure of this? I can't. But if we're going to "accept" that somebody's opinion is as they say it is (even though they could be lying), the bar is very very low for facts in these parts. You can't accept what most people do, Frank. You can't accept that when you "accept" something, you're accepting it as a fact. You're believing it. Whether you want to admit it or not, you're placing faith in this way being the case. You want to pass it off as a simple "guess". But what makes you choose to "guess" one way and not another? The answer (correct me if I'm wrong): because this way seems most likely to be the case. But why? Because of your deductions. You have made a conclusion based on evidence. But why should the evidence lead to your conclusion? ... ... ... ... This is a very crucial notion, so please give it some thought... ... ... ... ... ... JUST BECAUSE! IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IT OFTEN OR ALWAYS DOES!... ... but clearly, that is not enough! Believe me, it's not. But what you and I do is: we just go on it. We have FAITH that this time, when we drop an apple will be like all the other times we drop an apple... it will fall to the earth. And DUH... of course we will change our view if it doesn't happen that way. But if we can be said to know any facts whatsoever, then it must be by simply guessing them and happening to be right. Just as I said before. Not being sure (because we guessed) but calling it a fact. Otherwise, we know NO facts.

This is such simpleminded nonsense...it doesn't deserve a response.

0 Replies

thanks Forever, good poem Smile

and razzberries to you frank! My post made perfect sense and you're just lazy, and you can't come up with good rebuttal to the statements in their revised forms.

Just wait for Ein... He'll show ya!

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

thanks Forever, good poem

and razzberries to you frank! My post made perfect sense and you're just lazy, and you can't come up with good rebuttal to the statements in their revised forms.

Just wait for Ein... He'll show ya!

Your post is so far away from making perfect sense...to assert it does is laughable.

You are an unethical debater...and you do not even deserve the respect I've shown you so far.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

thanks Forever, good poem

* busted *

It's part of a song by Tom Petty, but I'm sure he'd be pleased with the compliment, too. :wink:

0 Replies

In the mood for a fight? I am!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know