---

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/16/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/16/96 [12:46] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [12:49] Epesh (joeo@fts4p18-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics. [12:49] Hi, lugen. [12:49] Reality exists; do you accept that? [12:49] Kant was a fool?? [12:50] cose (cose@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu) joined #apologetics. [12:50] we perceive reality to exist... I'll accept that [12:50] Yeah, he was a fool. He doubted the nature of himself, and his philosophy reflects that. [12:50] Can we perceive something in any form that does not exist? We exist; are we not real? [12:50] he was an epestimologist [12:51] we believe that, we don't know that [12:51] If we are not, how are we having this conversation? If we are, we are therefore real and part of reality; therefore reality exists. [12:52] that is an inductive sylogism, from the observed to what is not observed.... [12:52] So we, being real, are outside reality? [12:52] hi cose. Didn't notice you coming on. [12:53] atman (Ted!ucpsy4@ucpsy41.psy.uc.edu) joined #apologetics. [12:53] "Reality" is a nebulous term... [12:53] hi atman. [12:53] hi, here to watch! [12:53] Is it? It is reality is what is real. [12:53] heya...just observing for now...:) [12:53] blueberry (blueberry@Canth.HACKS.Arizona.EDU) joined #apologetics. [12:54] Epesh: what is real?? [12:54] without resorting to tautologies that is [12:54] (and in this corner we have Epesh, weighing in as a real person, and in this corner we have lugen, weighing in as a faith person, gentlemen let the discussion begin. [12:54] Rather: Reality is what is real, what is existent. We exist, or else we would not be able to debate whether we exist (denial requires a deniER), and since we exist, we are real; therefore reality exists. [12:54] show me the self [12:54] It takes a self to demand self. [12:55] petiteo principi, begs the question... [12:56] That's why I said it was axiomatic. If you think it's NOT axiomatic, fine; but these things are based on the ability to think such things. :) [12:57] the self is an assumption, based on a synthetic unity of perceptions, drawn together under one consciousness, it is not observed, it is believed. [12:57] Can one observe - i.e., create a train of thought - without existing? [12:57] Who observes, then? [12:57] What does one observe? [12:57] If it is believed, it cannot be "existant" per se, it is something we interpret to exist, according to our understanding of the context of the continuity of events [12:58] or, rather, what does a non-existent one NOT observe? [12:58] how can WE, being non-existent, interpret anything? [12:58] those metaphysical models have long been debunked, subject/object dichotomies are insufficient to explain what is present, and to whom they are present [12:59] So what you're saying is that we do not exist? [12:59] each one lacks any epistemological foundations, for they make an assumption from what is observed, to what is not observed [12:59] So what you're saying is that reality is NOT axiomatic. [12:59] Epesh: I'm saying that we have no knowledge (scientia, or certain knowledge) of that fact. [13:00] ergo, "reality" is a nebulous term [13:00] So therefore reality - existence - does not necessarily exist? [13:00] Not as you perceive it, no... there is no foundation for such a claim.... [13:01] Ah. But I didn't say what I perceived; I simply said that existence exists, regardless of how I perceive it. [13:02] the perceiver and the perceived are convienient designations, to order what is present in perception, but by no means certain [13:02] So what you're saying is - once again - that existence does not necessarily exist. [13:02] Or that we don't know whether it exists or not. [13:03] that's right... existence is a term that we attach to things, but that attachment is without foundation [13:03] Ah. So nothing is real? There is no reality, since reality is existence? -- or do you separate the two? [13:03] consciousness is not a thing that exists, it's a process that occurs.... [13:04] Action: Epesh all of a sudden wonders how he's using IRC, since it's part of existence, and we don't know it exists. [13:04] How does it occur? [13:04] I can buy that.... [13:04] good question [13:05] lugen: I can't. I use IRC because it exists; I didn't make you up in my mind (I would have made you up differently.) [13:05] I'm not a solipsist, I'm an epestemological nihilist [13:05] I'm not. I believe, like I said, existence exists; man is conscious. These are axiomatic to me. [13:05] erm, epistemological nihilist, I don't subscribe to a necessary doctrine of the self either [13:06] lugen: So you're actually a corporate entity? [13:06] Pardon me, let me use your intestine... thanks! [13:06] entity? No, that too is without qualification [13:07] or foundation [13:07] Ah. So you don't exist at all. Why should I speak to you? [13:07] entity = thing... no "proof" of that [13:07] No proof save perceptions; so you are correct. Therefore, how can you be a Christian? [13:08] atman (Ted!ucpsy4@ucpsy41.psy.uc.edu) left #apologetics. [13:08] Epesh: you're still hung up on the term "exists" [13:08] what is it that "really" exists?? point it out.... [13:10] lugen: My ability to point indictaes existence. [13:10] How odd! You reject the Kaballah forcefully - and are right to do so IMHO - yet you use a sefirot-like philosophy. [13:11] pointing is an action, existence is something else... no necessary link between the action and the object [13:11] How can you take an action without the act being on something? [13:12] Judith (Sandra@dial164.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [13:12] lugen, we need some people kicked in #bible [13:12] Judith (Sandra@dial164.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [13:12] Take an act and wipe some lamers off of #Bible - oops, you can't do that, #Bible is on IRC, which may or may not exist. [13:12] For that matter, the lamers don't exist either. [13:13] that's what Descartes thought... he was wrong.... he "assumed" that it necessarily belonged to something (Principles 1:52) [13:13] I can send you my logs if you don't think they were there. [13:14] Oops, can't do that; that'd be an action on some objects, sending objects to another object, none of which may exist. [13:14] Epesh: part of the misunderstanding here is that you are thinking metaphysically, and I am not..... [13:15] Perhaps you are right. I say, however, that existence DOES exist. Regardless. Axiomatically. The act of trying to disprove existence requires a consciousness, which is part OF existence. [13:15] you are talking about specific objects (entities) living within a particular reality, unfortunately that no longer washes [13:15] Lyn (mrmml@pipe11.h1.usa.pipeline.com) joined #apologetics. [13:15] And when DID it "wash?" [13:15] Lyn (mrmml@pipe11.h1.usa.pipeline.com) left #apologetics. [13:15] I say there's only one reality; the one that is. [13:16] which returns me to my first question, what is reality [13:16] That which exists. [13:16] it hasn't washed since Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, and most notably, Heidegger [13:16] what exists?? [13:17] erm Heidegger that is [13:18] Let's go over our terminology before this gets messy: An axiom or premise is a self-evident turth basic to any further reasoning. Correct? [13:18] Epesh: don't believe in self-evident truths... no such animal [13:20] Action: Epesh sighs... unless you accept the existence of reality, you cannot reason at all. An acknowledgement of the existence of reality is implicit in any other claim. [13:20] Epesh: not necessarily.... [13:21] what is "truth"?? [13:21] Even to make the counter claim ("there is no reality") is to make a specific claim about what the nature of reality actually is, thus admitting that it actually has one. t also acknowledges that perceptual and conceptual awarenesses are themselves existents. [13:21] (reductio ad absurdum coming up here) [13:21] Indeed. Can you deny reality exists? [13:22] Epesh: again, you're hung up on existence, and reality... but if pressed, you won't have a definition of either that is not tautological, and subject to doubt [13:23] Indeed. If you doubt it, you're still making a judgement about it, and the judgement itself requires reality to BE a judgement. [13:23] See? We're back to the crown of the sefirot. [13:24] And yes, I *am* hung up on reality; it exists, and is the domain in which I exist and am effective. [13:24] that doesn't "prove" anything, all you've done is lowered your criteria for what constitutes a proof, and that will not suffice in this context... [13:24] what does it mean to exist then? [13:25] It's self-referential; to exist is to be. [13:26] tautology again.... *sigh*, that means that "exist" is a purely a priori concept, and by definition cannot pertain to anythying a posteriori [13:26] So what you're saying is that we may not exist, regardless of whether we do or not. [13:28] NoWherMan (cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu) joined #apologetics. [13:28] I've said nothing of the kind at any point, this is something that you're trying to pin me on..... I'm talking about epistemology, proof, knowledge, and you're talking metaphysics, where a denial means that nothing is or exists per iod. [13:29] we;re talking at two different levels.... [13:29] Wow first time I've seen a crowd in #apologetics [13:29] Ah. And if epistemology has no application to our lives, then what worth is it? [13:29] I believe that I exist, but that does not mean that I know this [13:30] Do we really exist? [13:30] Why do you believe it? [13:30] Or are we a mere figment of someone's imgaination? [13:30] Am I typing this on my computer right now? [13:31] Or is it just an illusion? [13:31] ;-) [13:31] because that is all that is available. Knowledge is not available. All we have is belief [13:31] We certainly have choices; we exist or we do not. Why choose one over the other? [13:32] Well I choose not to exist [13:32] :PPPPPPPP [13:32] Lalalalalalalallalalalalal!!!!!! [13:32] which would raise the question in the end, what does it mean to exist [13:32] ;-) [13:33] Which is why I say it's axiomatic. [13:33] Mode change '+o lugen ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [13:33] NoWherMan!cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen [13:33] NoWherMan (cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu) joined #apologetics. [13:33] hey what's the big idea??? [13:33] axiomatic does not make it knowledge [13:33] go away [13:33] Mode change '+b *!*cj4137pa@*.cc.farmingdale.edu ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com [13:33] NoWherMan!cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen [13:34] what I believe is that you've opted to lower your standards of what constitutes knowledge... I refuse to do that [13:34] lugen: So you know nothing. [13:35] mangar (mangar@fox.ksu.ksu.edu) joined #apologetics. [13:35] Epesh: exactly... Socrates couldn't have said it better :) [13:35] cose (cose@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu) left #apologetics. [13:36] we interpret the world the way we do, but that does not mean that it is as we believe it to be..... or perceive it to be.... [13:36] or interpret it to be [13:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [13:38] Mode change '-o lugen ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com [13:39] with reference to your question about Christianity, that too is a matter of faith, not knowledge, so it is easy to be a Christian from such a position [13:40] So what you say is that there's no assurance on any level. [13:40] certainty at any level is an impossibility [13:40] at the moment [13:41] don't see that it will change anytime soon [13:41] So why believe? Just faith? After all, you have no reason to believe in God. [13:42] If everything is a matter of "belief", then to believe in God, who is predicated on faith, is to accept that truth is to be found in faith [13:43] But why "God?" Why not "Allah?" Why not "mephibosheth?" [13:43] Why not the lettre Q? [13:43] Allah is the Arab word for God [13:43] Wombat (wombat@p1s13.beaches.net) joined #apologetics. [13:44] same God, different route [13:44] blueberry: sorry I had to come and say hi B) [13:44] Wombat (wombat@p1s13.beaches.net) left #apologetics. [13:45] same god? Really? Jesus is a prophet of Islam, and the God of the Bible, and it's the SAME God? [13:45] Epesh: the Islamic traidition also stems out of the Abrahamic line [13:46] i'm aware of the roots of Islam. Are you saying Islam=Christianity? A Muslim is going to the same - perhaps nonexistent - heaven as a Christian? [13:47] Epesh: never said that the route was valid as a means of attaining eternal life in heaven, just said it was the same God, the God of Abraham that is the focus of worship [13:48] So how can you say that? Your assertion is based on perceptions of what may or may not be real [13:49] You're hung up on reality again.... [13:49] So I am. I'm real; reality is my domain of effectiveness. [13:49] mangar (mangar@fox.ksu.ksu.edu) left #apologetics. [13:50] all you have is a definition which is a tautology for "reality", and what you're saying is that this conforms to something, and I'm saying that it cannot, by definition. It can't apply to anythin g because you don't know what it is, and if you don't know [13:50] what it is, then you can't know what it applies to, and what it does not. [13:52] your defintion is tautological (self reflexive truth as you put it) and is not a definition, but merely saying that A = A, which is not telling you anything about A, or what A is.... [13:52] lugen, I don't understand what you are saying. Either reality is or it is not; beyond that I cannot progress. [13:53] Epesh: ever been on a Battleship? [13:53] or any Navel vessal?? [13:53] vesel [13:53] ship :) [13:53] Yes. (A destroyer; no battleship.) [13:54] was it black or white [13:54] It was grey. [13:54] that's not what I asked [13:54] It was neither. [13:54] apply that to your disjunct with reference reality is or is not [13:55] then you have my position :) [13:55] I disagree. My standpoint is equivalent to asking me NOt qhat colour it was, but rather "Were you on it?" [13:57] not, it is tantamount to asking whether it is there or not, which can always beg the question as to where "there" is, and what "there" is.... [13:59] Epesh (joeo@fts4p18-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p18-bfs.scri.fsu.edu] [13:59] needless to say, my position is not necessarily reducible to A or B disjuncts, but can be a violation of Aristotle's law of excluded middle, simply becasue we don't [13:59] egads... [13:59] oh well.... [13:59] I don't think he was getting where I was coming from :) [13:59] Samekh (joeo@fts4p1-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics. [13:59] Nick change: Samekh -> Epesh [14:00] needless to say, my position is not necessarily reducible to A or B disjuncts, but can be a violation of Aristotle's law of excluded middle, simply becasue we don't know what A or B is [14:01] In that case you aren't violating it because you haven't established the properties of A or B. [14:01] Not such that A or B are distinct. [14:02] how would they be "distinct" then, and how would you know this to be true? [14:03] What you're saying is that you're violating the excluded middle with A or B, but I say, "No; you haven't established the identity of A or B such that they are distinct with regard to your position, then." [14:03] are you going to be on later on this evening?? [14:04] not after roughly 4:30 or so. [14:04] we'll have to pick this up tomorrow then... I have a meeting in 45 minutes which I have to head out for.... [14:04] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: Leaving [14:07] blueberry (blueberry@Canth.HACKS.Arizona.EDU) left irc: Leaving [14:08] Epesh (joeo@fts4p1-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_16_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank