Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

An atheist is someone who thinks that the concept of god is ridiculous and impossible. That's not me. A little ridiculous maybe, but not completely impossible. I don't possess that kind of knowledge to make that claim.
 
I don't watch videos. If you need someone else to explain your point, then you need work on your communication skills.

Video offers the possibility of visual illustration, which I can not do with words. I am not the smartest person in the world, and there are those who explain it better than I. Don't be arrogant as to exclude outside sources because of its format, and then insult me for including outside sources in this discussion. I find that really arrogant.
 
I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

You believe in a God you cannot define?

I'm sorry, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
An atheist is someone who thinks that the concept of god is ridiculous and impossible. That's not me. A little ridiculous maybe, but not completely impossible. I don't possess that kind of knowledge to make that claim.

No. An atheist, is exactly that, an a (without)- theist (belief in god). Without belief in god. That's it. Refine you're definition. It is incorrect. I do not assert that there is no god. I am simply unconvinced by the proposition by theists that there is, and so are you, making you an atheist.
 
An atheist is someone who thinks that the concept of god is ridiculous and impossible. That's not me. A little ridiculous maybe, but not completely impossible. I don't possess that kind of knowledge to make that claim.

No. An atheist, is exactly that, an a (without)- theist (belief in god). Without belief in god. That's it. Refine you're definition. It is incorrect. I do not assert that there is no god. I am simply unconvinced by the proposition by theists that there is, and so are you, making you an atheist.

Why don't we just say that you can call yourself anything you want, and move on. You're already deluded into thinking that there's an invisible being in another dimension who rules your world and whom you're trying desperately to please. So why not push the boat out and call yourself whatever, it doesn't really make a diff.
 
An atheist is someone who thinks that the concept of god is ridiculous and impossible. That's not me. A little ridiculous maybe, but not completely impossible. I don't possess that kind of knowledge to make that claim.

No. An atheist, is exactly that, an a (without)- theist (belief in god). Without belief in god. That's it. Refine you're definition. It is incorrect. I do not assert that there is no god. I am simply unconvinced by the proposition by theists that there is, and so are you, making you an atheist.

Why don't we just say that you can call yourself anything you want, and move on. You're already deluded into thinking that there's an invisible being in another dimension who rules your world and whom you're trying desperately to please. So why not push the boat out and call yourself whatever, it doesn't really make a diff.

I am atheist and have said this several times, and I making the argument that you are too, by the definition atheism, both etymologically and logically, as I have shown. You can't call yourself anything you want, because we have definitions, but more importantly logic, and that is what this really has to do with. Agnosticism is effectively a non-sequitur to the question of personal belief, and I find it a hubristic that self-proclaimed agnostics think they have found some higher middle ground that is more reasonable than either atheism or theism. This relies on a false definition of atheism, which is in fact, only strong atheism, which is defined as the positive belief that no gods exist. But atheism itself is not necessarily this positive belief. It is simply a lack of belief in the proposition put forth by some, that "a god exists."

You can either believe or disbelieve a positive claim, such as "the lochness monster" exists. Whether it is knowable or not is a different concept.
 
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
From Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I don't believe that we have the knowledge to say for sure that deities don't exist.
 
And I have yet to see any solid proof that the loch ness monster, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.
 
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
From Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I don't believe that we have the knowledge to say for sure that deities don't exist.


You don't need knowledge to disbelieve a claim made by someone else. It simply is not requisite, and would be putting the cart before the horse. You're definition corroborates my own, even the distinction between strong atheism and weak atheism.
 
And I have yet to see any solid proof that the loch ness monster, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

Neither have I seen any proof, and so I would be, unjustified in believing in this things. But, I an not be certain that they do not exist, so while I am justified in suspending belief, there is always a certain amount of uncertainty. I don't know that these beings do not exist. There is the possibility that they do exist somewhere in this universe, and as long as that is the case, I can't know they don't exist. The same is with god. I don't feel like there is justification for belief in a god, so, I do not believe. But, I can not know that a god doesn't exist. Therefore, I am agnostic as to whether god exists, and am unconvinced that a god doest exist.
 
And I have yet to see any solid proof that the loch ness monster, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

Neither have I seen any proof, and so I would be, unjustified in believing in this things. But, I an not be certain that they do not exist, so while I am justified in suspending belief, there is always a certain amount of uncertainty. I don't know that these beings do not exist. There is the possibility that they do exist somewhere in this universe, and as long as that is the case, I can't know they don't exist. The same is with god. I don't feel like there is justification for belief in a god, so, I do not believe. But, I can not know that a god doesn't exist. Therefore, I am agnostic as to whether god exists, and am unconvinced that a god doest exist.

So now you can't take a position on anything because "somewhere in the universe" you MIGHT be proven wrong? :lol:
 
And I have yet to see any solid proof that the loch ness monster, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

Neither have I seen any proof, and so I would be, unjustified in believing in this things. But, I an not be certain that they do not exist, so while I am justified in suspending belief, there is always a certain amount of uncertainty. I don't know that these beings do not exist. There is the possibility that they do exist somewhere in this universe, and as long as that is the case, I can't know they don't exist. The same is with god. I don't feel like there is justification for belief in a god, so, I do not believe. But, I can not know that a god doesn't exist. Therefore, I am agnostic as to whether god exists, and am unconvinced that a god doest exist.

So now you can't take a position on anything because "somewhere in the universe" you MIGHT be proven wrong? :lol:

You shouldn't be laughing. It is you're ignorance to epistemology that is funny.

I do take a position. I take the position on non-belief in any claims that haven't met their burden of proof. Those making claims bear the burden of proof. If I find their evidence insufficient, I am justified in disbelief of their claim. The same with god, the same with the lochness monster, the flying spaghetti monster, little purple invisible elves on my shoulder, whatever you can think of...
 
Quantum Windbag:


First of all, philosophy does not exist merely to make arguments. Logic and argumentation is only a part of philosophy, although a very important and useful part. Logic itself can be considered the "method" of philosophizing, and arguments can be made to demonstrate points or truths, but it does not encompass philosophy.

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

See how that works?

Epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and other parts of philosophy do not exist simply to argue. They exist to understand truth, not to argue.

Philosophy cares no more about truth than religion. Philosophy exist only to observe the universe, and discuss its existence. It has no goals, and it has often been argued that it should have none. Josef Pieper argued that philosophy should be above purpose. He saw philosophy as something that while it has commonalities with the common goals of people, is not guided by those goals. Like poetry, philosophy only works if it works if you don't aim for a specific goal, even an abstract one like truth.

(Side note, I read him a long time ago, so I may be misrepresenting the way he stated this, but the end is roughly the same.)

Philosophy is "the love of wisdom" and was developed by the greeks to understand the world naturally, and rationally. You're claim about nothing being true in philosophy is also wrong. For the most part, claims are inconclusive, because the questions that are asked are simply too abstract or can not verified empirically, but for example, the laws of logic can be considered "true" descriptions of our universe, which falsifies your point.

Yes, and the Greeks are the ones that are responsible for the modern definition of God as being perfect, and even argued that the fact that God is perfect proves He exists, because without perfection nothing else would exist.

Do you really want to go there?

If I can use logic to prove that something you know is true is false, does that prove that the universe does not exist? Or does it prove that logic isn't true?

The fundamental problem with assuming logic is true is that it is untestable. Science uses logic to test the universe, and by doing so, logically invalidates itself as a tool to test the universe.

Please explain how an assumption you are making, which is untestable proves me wrong.

"This is why I refuse to use philosophy for anything other than a tool to make philosophers look silly."

So, you don't even care about philosophy. Obviously, you have not kept up on it, because whatever you studied in college, you have clearly let fade. You're understanding of epistemology is off.

On the contrary, I love philosophy. I just recognize that it has its limits, and refuse to pretend to myself that something that relies on me to define the universe is never going to work. I have had long discussions about philosophy with others that understand the inherent limitations of philosophy, but will use it to tear apart the assumptions of any person that thinks philosophy actually proves anything.

Yes, I know this also applies to science, but the inherent difference is that science is constrained by goals, and is actually aimed at understanding the world, not just watching it and explaining it.

I think its laughable when you said I reject epistemology. I fully embrace epistemology, and all of philosophy, because it addresses questions seen no where else, which I enjoy immensely. You obviously find no use for it. Fine. I do.

I reject your claim that two different terms with distinct definitions are ever fully interchangeable in a "truly philosophical debate." Belief and knowledge may be very closely related, they are not the same. If you are referring to discussions of the abstract where nothing can truly be known, then I may be willing to grant you this, but this is a special case or kind of discussion in which all of the subjects are and are so incredibly abstract, such as morality, that invoking the concept of knowledge is hard to do. Further, I don't believe that any philosopher would consider any beliefs about morality, for instance, to be knowledge, in a philosophical discussion. I have heard this, and I have listened to many "purely philosophical discussions" (The Partially-Examined Life podcast). This is the essence of epistemology, and asks the questions "what is knowledge?" "How do we know if something is true?" "When are we justified in believing something?"

The idea of justification is an important one, simply because can't truly know much of anything, with any certainty. All we have are logic, reason, and evidence. Without these, we could believe anything with full justification and we would all be insane, literally.

Ever here of Gettier? He proved that justified true belief is not proof that something is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

People have been arguing about that ever since, mostly by trying to redefine knowledge and belief in such a way that it eliminates the paradox. Good luck on being the first to actually prove him wrong.

I have reasoned evidence and inductive logic to conclude that the ancients believed that thunder was caused by the gods. It is probabilistic proposition, as is always the case with an inductive argument. They were humans like we are. They lacked scientific knowledge, and so the only information they had to inform them of the natural world, was their religious beliefs, and indeed, we see this all over the ancient world, and any time prior to the scientific age. This is nothing new. To say that the ancients were special and didn't consult their religions to explain the natural world would require an entirely different epistemology for this one group of people. What justifcation do you have for that???

So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.

We see evidence of their beliefs about thunder explicitly in their writing, and knowing what we know about their religious beliefs, and their lack of scientific knowledge about the natural world, it is justifiable to conclude that they believed thunder was caused by the gods, as they did about earthquakes, and the stars, the sun, the moon, space (the "heavens"). Certainly within history there are different standards of evidence we use. I can't know anything that happened before this present moment, technically. The past could have been an illusion, but the evidence we do have, if you accept that assumption that the universe is not some kind of simulation or that we are simply "brains in a vat," points to the ancients clearly believing what I have said.

This doesn't simply come down to experts making claims about the ancients without evidence. They do have evidence, and it all comes back to evidence. Justification of belief relies on some kind of evidence. That's a key point. Sure, we don't KNOW that they believed this. They could actually have believed something entirely different, but not written about it, and instead, purposely deceived future generations, by writing about something they didn't at all believe knowing that later others would read their writing and be deceived, but this is highly implausible, and is what you're logic might suggest. This is absurd.

So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

By the way, the same people who are telling you that these people thought the gods caused thunder are also telling you that they thought the Earth was flat and that sailors stayed close to shore to be safe.

The Greeks not only knew the Earth was round, they accurately measured its circumference, and the only people that stay close to shore when sailing are idiots.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.
 
An atheist is someone who thinks that the concept of god is ridiculous and impossible. That's not me. A little ridiculous maybe, but not completely impossible. I don't possess that kind of knowledge to make that claim.

That's a common misconception, and while that may be how many people use the word, any serious treatment of the topic proves it inaccurate. I suppose it's possible that some atheists see the concept of god as "ridiculous and impossible". But plenty of them see it exactly the opposite, admitting that - depending on the particular 'god' in question - it would be wonderful if they did exist, and it's certainly possible. They're just not convinced it's the case that they do.
 
Quantum Windbag:


First of all, philosophy does not exist merely to make arguments. Logic and argumentation is only a part of philosophy, although a very important and useful part. Logic itself can be considered the "method" of philosophizing, and arguments can be made to demonstrate points or truths, but it does not encompass philosophy.

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

See how that works?

Epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and other parts of philosophy do not exist simply to argue. They exist to understand truth, not to argue.

Philosophy cares no more about truth than religion. Philosophy exist only to observe the universe, and discuss its existence. It has no goals, and it has often been argued that it should have none. Josef Pieper argued that philosophy should be above purpose. He saw philosophy as something that while it has commonalities with the common goals of people, is not guided by those goals. Like poetry, philosophy only works if it works if you don't aim for a specific goal, even an abstract one like truth.

(Side note, I read him a long time ago, so I may be misrepresenting the way he stated this, but the end is roughly the same.)



Yes, and the Greeks are the ones that are responsible for the modern definition of God as being perfect, and even argued that the fact that God is perfect proves He exists, because without perfection nothing else would exist.

Do you really want to go there?

If I can use logic to prove that something you know is true is false, does that prove that the universe does not exist? Or does it prove that logic isn't true?

The fundamental problem with assuming logic is true is that it is untestable. Science uses logic to test the universe, and by doing so, logically invalidates itself as a tool to test the universe.

Please explain how an assumption you are making, which is untestable proves me wrong.



On the contrary, I love philosophy. I just recognize that it has its limits, and refuse to pretend to myself that something that relies on me to define the universe is never going to work. I have had long discussions about philosophy with others that understand the inherent limitations of philosophy, but will use it to tear apart the assumptions of any person that thinks philosophy actually proves anything.

Yes, I know this also applies to science, but the inherent difference is that science is constrained by goals, and is actually aimed at understanding the world, not just watching it and explaining it.



Ever here of Gettier? He proved that justified true belief is not proof that something is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

People have been arguing about that ever since, mostly by trying to redefine knowledge and belief in such a way that it eliminates the paradox. Good luck on being the first to actually prove him wrong.

I have reasoned evidence and inductive logic to conclude that the ancients believed that thunder was caused by the gods. It is probabilistic proposition, as is always the case with an inductive argument. They were humans like we are. They lacked scientific knowledge, and so the only information they had to inform them of the natural world, was their religious beliefs, and indeed, we see this all over the ancient world, and any time prior to the scientific age. This is nothing new. To say that the ancients were special and didn't consult their religions to explain the natural world would require an entirely different epistemology for this one group of people. What justifcation do you have for that???

So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.

We see evidence of their beliefs about thunder explicitly in their writing, and knowing what we know about their religious beliefs, and their lack of scientific knowledge about the natural world, it is justifiable to conclude that they believed thunder was caused by the gods, as they did about earthquakes, and the stars, the sun, the moon, space (the "heavens"). Certainly within history there are different standards of evidence we use. I can't know anything that happened before this present moment, technically. The past could have been an illusion, but the evidence we do have, if you accept that assumption that the universe is not some kind of simulation or that we are simply "brains in a vat," points to the ancients clearly believing what I have said.

This doesn't simply come down to experts making claims about the ancients without evidence. They do have evidence, and it all comes back to evidence. Justification of belief relies on some kind of evidence. That's a key point. Sure, we don't KNOW that they believed this. They could actually have believed something entirely different, but not written about it, and instead, purposely deceived future generations, by writing about something they didn't at all believe knowing that later others would read their writing and be deceived, but this is highly implausible, and is what you're logic might suggest. This is absurd.

So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

By the way, the same people who are telling you that these people thought the gods caused thunder are also telling you that they thought the Earth was flat and that sailors stayed close to shore to be safe.

The Greeks not only knew the Earth was round, they accurately measured its circumference, and the only people that stay close to shore when sailing are idiots.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.

Wow. You don't know anything about the fundamentals of philosophy. Logic is not an argument. It is used to make arguments valid and sound. this is over if you don't even grasp that much.
 
Quantum Windbag:


First of all, philosophy does not exist merely to make arguments. Logic and argumentation is only a part of philosophy, although a very important and useful part. Logic itself can be considered the "method" of philosophizing, and arguments can be made to demonstrate points or truths, but it does not encompass philosophy.

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

See how that works?



Philosophy cares no more about truth than religion. Philosophy exist only to observe the universe, and discuss its existence. It has no goals, and it has often been argued that it should have none. Josef Pieper argued that philosophy should be above purpose. He saw philosophy as something that while it has commonalities with the common goals of people, is not guided by those goals. Like poetry, philosophy only works if it works if you don't aim for a specific goal, even an abstract one like truth.

(Side note, I read him a long time ago, so I may be misrepresenting the way he stated this, but the end is roughly the same.)



Yes, and the Greeks are the ones that are responsible for the modern definition of God as being perfect, and even argued that the fact that God is perfect proves He exists, because without perfection nothing else would exist.

Do you really want to go there?

If I can use logic to prove that something you know is true is false, does that prove that the universe does not exist? Or does it prove that logic isn't true?

The fundamental problem with assuming logic is true is that it is untestable. Science uses logic to test the universe, and by doing so, logically invalidates itself as a tool to test the universe.

Please explain how an assumption you are making, which is untestable proves me wrong.



On the contrary, I love philosophy. I just recognize that it has its limits, and refuse to pretend to myself that something that relies on me to define the universe is never going to work. I have had long discussions about philosophy with others that understand the inherent limitations of philosophy, but will use it to tear apart the assumptions of any person that thinks philosophy actually proves anything.

Yes, I know this also applies to science, but the inherent difference is that science is constrained by goals, and is actually aimed at understanding the world, not just watching it and explaining it.



Ever here of Gettier? He proved that justified true belief is not proof that something is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

People have been arguing about that ever since, mostly by trying to redefine knowledge and belief in such a way that it eliminates the paradox. Good luck on being the first to actually prove him wrong.



So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.

We see evidence of their beliefs about thunder explicitly in their writing, and knowing what we know about their religious beliefs, and their lack of scientific knowledge about the natural world, it is justifiable to conclude that they believed thunder was caused by the gods, as they did about earthquakes, and the stars, the sun, the moon, space (the "heavens"). Certainly within history there are different standards of evidence we use. I can't know anything that happened before this present moment, technically. The past could have been an illusion, but the evidence we do have, if you accept that assumption that the universe is not some kind of simulation or that we are simply "brains in a vat," points to the ancients clearly believing what I have said.

This doesn't simply come down to experts making claims about the ancients without evidence. They do have evidence, and it all comes back to evidence. Justification of belief relies on some kind of evidence. That's a key point. Sure, we don't KNOW that they believed this. They could actually have believed something entirely different, but not written about it, and instead, purposely deceived future generations, by writing about something they didn't at all believe knowing that later others would read their writing and be deceived, but this is highly implausible, and is what you're logic might suggest. This is absurd.

So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

By the way, the same people who are telling you that these people thought the gods caused thunder are also telling you that they thought the Earth was flat and that sailors stayed close to shore to be safe.

The Greeks not only knew the Earth was round, they accurately measured its circumference, and the only people that stay close to shore when sailing are idiots.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.

Wow. You don't know anything about the fundamentals of philosophy. Logic is not an argument. It is used to make arguments valid and sound. this is over if you don't even grasp that much.

That was either funny or really sad.

I. We have seen that one main branch of philosophy is epistemology and one main branch of epistemology is logic.
A. What is epistemology?
B. What is logic? Simply put, the purpose of logic is to sort out the good arguments from the poor ones. II. So the chief concern of logic is the structure of an argument.
A. Every argument in logic has a structure, and every argument can be described in terms of this structure.

1. Argument: any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others.


a. In logic, the normal sense of "argument," such as my neighbor yelling to me about my trashcans is not termed "an argument" in logic.


b. By "argument," we mean a demonstration or a proof of some statement, not emotional language. E.g., "That bird is a crow; therefore, it's black."

2. The central parts of an argument include ...


a. Premiss: (more usually spelled "premise") a proposition which gives reasons, grounds, or evidence for accepting some other proposition, called the conclusion.


b. Conclusion: a proposition, which is purported to be established on the basis of other propositions.

The Structure of Arguments

Note that logic has nothing to do with determining if an argument is valid, it is simply a way to argue that allows one to structure your argument in a way that makes if good (strong) by the rules of logic. I can easily structure a strong argument that uses invalid premises to reach a proper logical conclusion.
 
Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

See how that works?



Philosophy cares no more about truth than religion. Philosophy exist only to observe the universe, and discuss its existence. It has no goals, and it has often been argued that it should have none. Josef Pieper argued that philosophy should be above purpose. He saw philosophy as something that while it has commonalities with the common goals of people, is not guided by those goals. Like poetry, philosophy only works if it works if you don't aim for a specific goal, even an abstract one like truth.

(Side note, I read him a long time ago, so I may be misrepresenting the way he stated this, but the end is roughly the same.)



Yes, and the Greeks are the ones that are responsible for the modern definition of God as being perfect, and even argued that the fact that God is perfect proves He exists, because without perfection nothing else would exist.

Do you really want to go there?

If I can use logic to prove that something you know is true is false, does that prove that the universe does not exist? Or does it prove that logic isn't true?

The fundamental problem with assuming logic is true is that it is untestable. Science uses logic to test the universe, and by doing so, logically invalidates itself as a tool to test the universe.

Please explain how an assumption you are making, which is untestable proves me wrong.



On the contrary, I love philosophy. I just recognize that it has its limits, and refuse to pretend to myself that something that relies on me to define the universe is never going to work. I have had long discussions about philosophy with others that understand the inherent limitations of philosophy, but will use it to tear apart the assumptions of any person that thinks philosophy actually proves anything.

Yes, I know this also applies to science, but the inherent difference is that science is constrained by goals, and is actually aimed at understanding the world, not just watching it and explaining it.



Ever here of Gettier? He proved that justified true belief is not proof that something is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

People have been arguing about that ever since, mostly by trying to redefine knowledge and belief in such a way that it eliminates the paradox. Good luck on being the first to actually prove him wrong.



So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.



So, like I said, nothing. All you can do is claim you know more than they did, and this, somehow, proves your assumptions about them are right.

The strangest thing is that history tells me that these ancients, who completely lacked scientific knowledge, built structures that baffled engineers for thousands of years, and that they built a computer that accurately tracked the movement of the planets long before Galileo.

By the way, the same people who are telling you that these people thought the gods caused thunder are also telling you that they thought the Earth was flat and that sailors stayed close to shore to be safe.

The Greeks not only knew the Earth was round, they accurately measured its circumference, and the only people that stay close to shore when sailing are idiots.

You really should stop assuming you know everything.

Wow. You don't know anything about the fundamentals of philosophy. Logic is not an argument. It is used to make arguments valid and sound. this is over if you don't even grasp that much.

That was either funny or really sad.

I. We have seen that one main branch of philosophy is epistemology and one main branch of epistemology is logic.
A. What is epistemology?
B. What is logic? Simply put, the purpose of logic is to sort out the good arguments from the poor ones. II. So the chief concern of logic is the structure of an argument.
A. Every argument in logic has a structure, and every argument can be described in terms of this structure.

1. Argument: any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others.


a. In logic, the normal sense of "argument," such as my neighbor yelling to me about my trashcans is not termed "an argument" in logic.


b. By "argument," we mean a demonstration or a proof of some statement, not emotional language. E.g., "That bird is a crow; therefore, it's black."

2. The central parts of an argument include ...


a. Premiss: (more usually spelled "premise") a proposition which gives reasons, grounds, or evidence for accepting some other proposition, called the conclusion.


b. Conclusion: a proposition, which is purported to be established on the basis of other propositions.

The Structure of Arguments

Note that logic has nothing to do with determining if an argument is valid, it is simply a way to argue that allows one to structure your argument in a way that makes if good (strong) by the rules of logic. I can easily structure a strong argument that uses invalid premises to reach a proper logical conclusion.

You said that logic is an argument. That is false. "Logic" does not equal "argument." Logic is used to make an argument. It is a mode of reasoning. Therefore, it can not be an argument itself. How can you sit there and tell me that it is? Everything you just posted falsifies you're own statement! It clearly explains that logic is used in argumentation and studied to discern good argument forms from bad argument forms. This is so obvious, I can't even believe we're arguing about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

"Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]"
 
Last edited:
Wow. You don't know anything about the fundamentals of philosophy. Logic is not an argument. It is used to make arguments valid and sound. this is over if you don't even grasp that much.

That was either funny or really sad.

I. We have seen that one main branch of philosophy is epistemology and one main branch of epistemology is logic.
A. What is epistemology?
B. What is logic? Simply put, the purpose of logic is to sort out the good arguments from the poor ones. II. So the chief concern of logic is the structure of an argument.
A. Every argument in logic has a structure, and every argument can be described in terms of this structure.

1. Argument: any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others.


a. In logic, the normal sense of "argument," such as my neighbor yelling to me about my trashcans is not termed "an argument" in logic.


b. By "argument," we mean a demonstration or a proof of some statement, not emotional language. E.g., "That bird is a crow; therefore, it's black."

2. The central parts of an argument include ...


a. Premiss: (more usually spelled "premise") a proposition which gives reasons, grounds, or evidence for accepting some other proposition, called the conclusion.


b. Conclusion: a proposition, which is purported to be established on the basis of other propositions.
The Structure of Arguments

Note that logic has nothing to do with determining if an argument is valid, it is simply a way to argue that allows one to structure your argument in a way that makes if good (strong) by the rules of logic. I can easily structure a strong argument that uses invalid premises to reach a proper logical conclusion.

You said that logic is an argument. That is false. "Logic" does not equal "argument." Logic is used to make an argument. It is a mode of reasoning. Therefore, it can not be an argument itself. How can you sit there and tell me that it is? Everything you just posted falsifies you're own statement! It clearly explains that logic is used in argumentation and studied to discern good argument forms from bad argument forms. This is so obvious, I can't even believe we're arguing about this.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]"

What I said is that logic is, in and of itself, argument. You misquoting and twisting what I said does not make it wrong. It does, however, make you wrong.
 
That was either funny or really sad.

The Structure of Arguments

Note that logic has nothing to do with determining if an argument is valid, it is simply a way to argue that allows one to structure your argument in a way that makes if good (strong) by the rules of logic. I can easily structure a strong argument that uses invalid premises to reach a proper logical conclusion.

You said that logic is an argument. That is false. "Logic" does not equal "argument." Logic is used to make an argument. It is a mode of reasoning. Therefore, it can not be an argument itself. How can you sit there and tell me that it is? Everything you just posted falsifies you're own statement! It clearly explains that logic is used in argumentation and studied to discern good argument forms from bad argument forms. This is so obvious, I can't even believe we're arguing about this.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]"

What I said is that logic is, in and of itself, argument. You misquoting and twisting what I said does not make it wrong. It does, however, make you wrong.

You're so frustrating to argue with, man. Would you please make some sense here?

You are saying logic=argument. I am saying, that is absolutely false. Where have did I go wrong?

You said this:

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

You are clearly trying to establish equivalency for two different words and use them interchangeably. Do you stick by this? So when I say to someone, "you are very logical," I could also say "you are very argumentative" and it would mean the same thing? No. So stop fucking saying that logic is argument. It's asinine. Logic is not argument. It is used in argument. Get it???!!

Stop acting like you know philosophy. You don't. When did you study it, 40 years ago?
 
You said that logic is an argument. That is false. "Logic" does not equal "argument." Logic is used to make an argument. It is a mode of reasoning. Therefore, it can not be an argument itself. How can you sit there and tell me that it is? Everything you just posted falsifies you're own statement! It clearly explains that logic is used in argumentation and studied to discern good argument forms from bad argument forms. This is so obvious, I can't even believe we're arguing about this.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]"

What I said is that logic is, in and of itself, argument. You misquoting and twisting what I said does not make it wrong. It does, however, make you wrong.

You're so frustrating to argue with, man. Would you please make some sense here?

You are saying logic=argument. I am saying, that is absolutely false. Where have did I go wrong?

You said this:

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.
You are clearly trying to establish equivalency for two different words and use them interchangeably. Do you stick by this? So when I say to someone, "you are very logical," I could also say "you are very argumentative" and it would mean the same thing? No. So stop fucking that logic is argument. Logic is not argument. It is used in argument. Get it???!!

Stop acting like you know philosophy. You don't. When did you study it, 40 years ago?

It is frustrating because you are wrong. When you argue with someone you are reasoning with them in order to convince them that you are correct. Logic is the study of reasoning, and learning to use logic means you learn to argue.

I am not the one pretending that I understand anything. No one understands philosophy, they use it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top