[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/16/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/16/96 [12:46] l

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[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] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank