| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| I don't get it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 28 Jun 2010, 02:48 PM (5,635 Views) | |
| Deleted User | 24 Aug 2010, 09:28 AM Post #121 |
|
Deleted User
|
oh i get it - you just dont take any position -so then you dont have to have evidence for anything by making a positive claim your dog explanation are you saying dogs and humans are born with instincts ? as the definition of instinct being- 1.Derived from or prompted by a natural tendency or impulse: instinctual, intuitive, visceral. See thoughts. 2.Acting or happening without apparent forethought, prompting, or planning and further are you saying that you use your instincts
o.k so lets clarify -here you say that logical absoulutes stay the same-correct? analiysis and synthesis lovely ! Concolor then what of this !!!........." Now whatever, may be the forms of the stages which precede the Notion we come secondly to the relation in which the Notion is thought to these forms. The conception of this relation both in ordinary psychology and in the Kantin transcendental philosophy is that the empirical material, the manifold of intuition and representation, first exists on its own account, and that then the understanding approaches it, brings unity into it and by abstraction raises it to the form of universality-The understanding is in this way an intrinsically empty form which, on the one hand, obtains a reality through the said given content and, on the other hand, abstracts from that content, that is to say, lets it drop as something useless, but useless only for the Notion. In both these actions the Notion is not the independent factor, not the essential and true element of the prior given material; on the contrary, it is the material that is regarded as the absolute reality, which cannot be extracted from the Notion..." You use the reality of a logical absoulute in your notion of logic,therefor an agnostic view toward the reality or exsistence of them is untenable in respects to a position -it can not be extracted from the notion ! so you saying you are having no particular beleif in them -initself is a contradiction with-in the very notion you claim does not exsist ! |
|
|
| Midst Of Vampy | 24 Aug 2010, 08:12 PM Post #122 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whoa, okay take a breather. No need to yell, I think we should talk about this when we are all mature enough to talk about it calmly. |
| TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES! | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 25 Aug 2010, 12:18 AM Post #123 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
who's yelling? Or did I just miss a joke? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 25 Aug 2010, 07:46 AM Post #124 |
|
Deleted User
|
meh topic title appropriate do u get it ? concolor |
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Aug 2010, 02:17 PM Post #125 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:It's the other way around: I have no evidence for anything, so I just can't take any position where I make a positive claim. Without ruling out instincts we develop later, I would say that we are all born with instincts yes (as in definition #1). And yes, I do use my instincts. Yes, from what I understand, these logical absolutes are independent of the observer in the same way an apple is. "Stay the same" could also mean that it wouldn't change over time or place, but just like apples change over time and place, perhaps these logical absolutes would as well. Or perhaps not, what do I know ![]() You asked what I think of this quote, and I think it's a chink of words which require a whole range of definitions, clarifications and explanations to make even the slightest bit of sense. What is this Notion? Basically, if you want to discuss some kind of point related to this, you have to choose one of three options (or find an even better one): 1. write the point short and simple, 2. Go through the whole text with me, word-by-word, until everything is clear and understood, 3. write an explanation on most of the words used there and hope I magically get it (this will probably just turn into option #2) Assuming that by "notion of logic" you are talking about my concept of logic: My use of logic does not need there to be logical absolutes in existence, just like my concept of a smurf does not require smurfs to exist. The laws of physics are not absolute and unchangeable, yet I can still use them, quite successfully. Therefore an agnostic view towards the reality or exsistence of logical absolutes is quite tenable. Also, without sufficient knowledge agnosticism is the only tenable position. This means that if you were to deliver sufficient evidence for me to accept the reality of these logical absolutes, only then will the most reasonable position shift from being agnostic to a positive belief in these absolutes (even if they were real all along). This would probably be easier if you explained what a notion is. Is it the same as a concept? Because I keep telling you these absolutes are not conceptual (then they would hardly be absolute). |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Midst Of Vampy | 28 Aug 2010, 09:13 PM Post #126 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You make some great points, but so does ARAZEC. |
| TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES! | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 29 Aug 2010, 04:53 AM Post #127 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thax Vampira, it's useful to get an external opinion on a discussion
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 30 Aug 2010, 07:48 AM Post #128 |
|
Deleted User
|
yeah thanks vamp heres some False dichotomy ! ha ha this time your giving me no four of your "correct" answers to choose from Concolor ! no basically if you want to discuss it discuss it and if you dont - dont tell me what i "have" to do a sensus divinitatis question...... so do you reckon you can use your instincts to smell ? ever smelt evil ? ever felt the cold pass thru you ? ever sensed dread? so if you have no evidence for anything why do you go around saying logical absoulutes dont exist ? EXACTLY ! yes they are not human constructs THANK-YOU FOR FINALLY CONCEDING thats the whole point ! because if they WERE NOT independant of the observer they would change from person to person and also contridict themselves like people often do ! yay a point we agree on ! so now we can get into some REAL debate ala K = (K − P) + P and a > b if and only if a deductively closed knowledge base is infinite OH WAIT !!!! you do beleive in infinity dont you ?
|
|
|
| Concolor | 30 Aug 2010, 01:18 PM Post #129 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:So I'm giving you "no four of my "correct" answers". I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Okay, I understand that you are displeased with something and that it's related to my suggestion of clarifying the quote you posted. Apart from this I have no idea of what you're writing. "no basically if you want to discuss it discuss it and if you dont - dont tell me what i "have" to do" <- This is unfortunately not a complete sentence. Some punctuation might have helped a bit. Basically (if you actually read my question), I'm asking you to either choose one of the listed options or suggest a better one. Are you trying to tell me that "Nuh-huh, I refuse to explain my quote", is your suggestion for a better solution? What is a sensus divinitatis question? Nope, I use my senses for that. Nope, but I have smelt a feeling, heard a color and read a taste. Our senses are pretty easy to mess with, ever seen an optical illusion? Gah! That's not what I'm saying! I'm repeating it over and over and over again, but you reaaaaaaally don't like taking it in do ya? I'm agnostic to the existence of logical absolutes. Agnostic. A-gnostic. I'm saying I do not know whether or not these absolutes exist. Hence I cannot say that they exist. And I cannot claim that they cannot exist. Great. Why did you wait so long before applauding? I said this already in post #116:"These absolutes would not be dependent on the individual minds, but the conceptions of logic (which I think was what you were talking about) are naturally dependent on the mind in which the particular concept exists." huh? Mathematical infinity? sure. Physical infinity? What would that even mean? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
30 Aug 2010, 03:38 PM Post #130 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Physical infinity, would most likely be that the universe has no end. Or that there is infinite space beyond the universe. Maybe. |
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 30 Aug 2010, 03:47 PM Post #131 |
|
Deleted User
|
false dilemma/false dichotomy -is when you present a limited amount of options as correct and say "choose from these " presenting them as correct-so i choose another option-not included on your list- basically make up your mind on the quote and dont tell me what i "have" to do- however BECAUSE I DIDNT DO WHAT YOU WANTED ME TO DO you then add to my response the premise that my option is "incorrect" and "not the best soulution" quite clearly you are turning the tables and trying to force me to make a positive statement which then according to your agnostic atheism a person must then "defend" then Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument- why after talking to me for over a year -when we get into close debate DO YOU TRY TO discredit me due to my lack of punctuation ? seems you can understand me adequately enough to understand me to go on talking to me for so long but you resort to this AND popular opinion at these times when try to avoid the issues i raise ! and you suddenly lose the ability to google ! |
|
|
| dragonshardz | 31 Aug 2010, 09:48 AM Post #132 |
![]()
Troll
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
dragonshardz wishes for mod power to impose a 24-hour cooldown on heated thread... |
|
I lurk a lot on this forum, and am very busy in real life, so don't be surprised if I take a couple days, or even weeks, to reply to your post or PM. GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any other forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 31 Aug 2010, 01:58 PM Post #133 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:I did not present you with a limited amount of options. I told you to choose one of three or find a better one. That leaves it all up to you. Also, my normal reply would have been "please explain this unintelligeable quote". Which is just one option. How can you complain when I give you loads more to choose from than a normal answer would entail? I did make up my mind, and I said: "I think it's a ch(u)nk of words which require a whole range of definitions, clarifications and explanations to make even the slightest bit of sense." That's honestly what I think of it. I did not presuppose your answer to be wrong, I asked you if you really thought it was a better option. The burden of proof lies on the one making a positive claim. This is a basic neccesity for rational discourse and has nothing to do with a belief, or lack thereof, in a personal supernatural entity. At what point did I make an ad hominem? My wish for you to use punctuation is hardly an unreasonable demand. And when did we not have a close debate? If you claim that I have a perfect track record of always understanding you, then you seem to be forgetting the fact that almost one third of my posts contains the sentences: "What are you trying to say?", "please explain","ARAZEC what on earth are you talking about?","and where did that come from?" etc. How can you claim that I have suddenly stopped understanding you, when complaining about not getting what you're saying is practically my profession? Are you trying to say that I could have found an explanation to your quote by googling it? If so, why did you not just give me the link? That would have been a great option! Why did you not just say "If you don't understand the quote, just follow this link"? Edited by Concolor, 31 Aug 2010, 02:33 PM.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 2 Sep 2010, 07:15 AM Post #134 |
|
Deleted User
|
what happened to your assertion about the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge? srry im agnostic about the burden of proof being on the one making the positive claim - i mean you claim agnostic views on everything you dont want to include so i might aswell too ! yeah you said the use of logic is a human construct so what are the "basic neccesities" ? i say rational discourse is an apple mixed with a unicorn but its also a pineapple-seeing as you beleive logical absoulutes dont exsist why use the law of identity? its a logical absoulute but seeing as you dont beleive they exsist lets just call a discussion a spade and lets say a disscusion is a spade or no a disscussion is a bucket. ...a suggestion....maybe its not the other way around,perhaps the manner in which you discount,dont search for or claim there is no evidence PRECEEDING your investigations is the reason YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE ?.... thats my just my opinion and what i have observed about your spelling......i mean what i have observed about your techniques for gathering evidence. |
|
|
| Concolor | 2 Sep 2010, 02:02 PM Post #135 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:And you have every right to be. If you have never encountered situations in which accepting something something without evidence has been a disadvantage, I can understand that this concept may seem alien. And I agree with you that a better name for it would be "burden of evidence" not "burden of proof", as the expression is also used outside of formal logic an mathematics. So let's take the general situation: Peter tells Lucy something about the world that he thinks she should believe in. It could be anything; that unicorns exist or that water can turn to ice, it doesn't matter as long as it's some claim of truth. Should Lucy believe him straight away, or does this require evidence? Should it be Peter that supplies evidence that his claim is true, or is it Lucy that needs to show evidence that it is not? It turns out that if Lucy would try to disprove Peter's claim, then her task is practically impossible. No matter if Peter's statement is true or not. Lucy can never find enough evidence to show that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe, because she cannot go through the entire universe to check. She can never demonstrate that water cannot, under any conditions, turn to ice because there could always be some elaborate method, or range of temperature or pressure that she just don't have the technology to put water in to eliminate all possible ways of turning water into ice. Thus putting the burden of proof on Lucy leads us nowhere. But for Peter it's quite different. All he needs to do is to show one of his unicorns, or freeze water into ice, and give Lucy the opportunity to investigate it to make sure there's no foul play, and Lucy should have good reason to be convinced. Furthermore, the existence of unicorns or ability of water to freeze would be an objective fact that scientists could study and soon Peter's discovery would be a well established scientific fact. So putting the burden of proof on Peter gives us a chance of finding out if it's true. So if we require any evidence, Peter is the only one who can possibly supply any evidence. But what if we don't require any evidence? Then we would have to believe in both the freezing of water and existence of unicorns, and we would have no way of separating which of these claims are more believable than the other. We would all have to believe in every single claim ever stated, even contradicting ones. And I would claim that this is a very poor foundation upon which to make rational decisions. This is why there is a burden of evidence, and why it is upon the one who makes a positive claim. they are concepts too Because it has consistently shown itself to be useful. And I have never claimed that they don't exist, I just don't claim that they do. Why would we want to do that, to me that does not seem useful at all? Of course there is no evidence before an investigation. That's what the investigation is for. But after mankind has spent a couple of millenia of investigations, there has still not shown up any objective evidence that seems convincing that there is a supernatural realm. That's a little creepy. Have you been observing me gathering evidence? When was this, and how did you know it was me before we even met on the internet? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

appropriate
?
concolor 

.gif)


6:44 PM Jul 10