This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
You do not know that what your eyes perceive is accurate. Therefore, you cannot say with 100% certainty that what you saw in a microscopic is accurate. While there is a ridiculously high probably that it is, you cannot know for sure.
You can't. Period. You can never know for sure. You can only say that past a certain level of doubt, you have faith you made the right choice.
Period. Double Period. Quadruple Period. There's no room for discussion there.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You do not know that what your eyes perceive is accurate.
None of it relies on sight. Even if water only exists in my mind, the proof still holds.
Senses have nothing to do with the Pythagorean Theorem either. Because it's all already in my head anyways.
Post by
Adamsm
You do not know that what your eyes perceive is accurate. Therefore, you cannot say with 100% certainty that what you saw in a microscopic is accurate. While there is a ridiculously high probably that it is, you cannot know for sure.
You can't. Period. You can never know for sure. You can only say that past a certain level of doubt, you have faith you made the right choice.
Period. Double Period. Quadruple Period. There's no room for discussion there.
You can't measure faith anyways... that's like trying to measure love or hatred.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
You do not know that what your eyes perceive is accurate. Therefore, you cannot say with 100% certainty that what you saw in a microscopic is accurate. While there is a ridiculously high probably that it is, you cannot know for sure.
You can't. Period. You can never know for sure. You can only say that past a certain level of doubt, you have faith you made the right choice.
Period. Double Period. Quadruple Period. There's no room for discussion there.
You can't measure faith anyways... that's like trying to measure love or hatred.
Not really. Its pretty binary, if I trust something, I believe its true, if I do not trust something I do not believe its true.
If I am to trust something when enough evidence accumulates, its pretty scientific to measure the level of evidence before that trust shift flips on. Now, all the stuff going on in our head where we try to trust whether or not our perceptions are accurate is hard to measure, but we still either trust or we don't.
None of it relies on sight. Even if water only exists in my mind, the proof still holds.
Senses have nothing to do with the Pythagorean Theorem either. Because it's all already in my head anyways.
Sight isn't the only factor in there. How do you know what your mind reasoned out to be true? Etc. Etc. Etc. I know it may be over your head, but if you really look closely, its pretty apparent. On some level there will always be doubt, and doubt implies that there isn't absolute proof.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Sight isn't the only factor in there. How do you know what your mind reasoned out to be true? Etc. Etc. Etc. I know it may be over your head, but if you really look closely, its pretty apparent. On some level there will always be doubt, and doubt implies that there isn't absolute proof.
Because doubt relies on reason just as much as proof does. So according to you, we can't even doubt.
Post by
Adamsm
Not really. Its pretty binary, if I trust something, I believe its true, if I do not trust something I do not believe its true.
If I am to trust something when enough evidence accumulates, its pretty scientific to measure the level of evidence before that trust shift flips on. Now, all the stuff going on in our head where we try to trust whether or not our perceptions are accurate is hard to measure, but we still either trust or we don't.Not really, that's your perceptions which would change for every person who looks at it. After all, someone else could look at that same set of evidence and see the complete opposite of what you do.
Post by
TheMediator
I'll just quote this from a philosophy book I have instead of arguing it out, simply because I think the book can explain it better than I can.
One of Nagarjuna's skeptical arguments against theories about the means to knowledge runs something like this: First, he asks how we establish that there are means to knowledge in the first place. Suppose we establish the means to knowledge by appealing to things we know. But how do we know those things without having already established a means to knowledge? We can't assume that the means to knowledge tells us what we know, since the existence of these very means to knowledge is what was being questioned. So we can't establish the things we know without means to knowledge and we can't establish the means to knowledge without having established the things we know. Hence, any attempt at a theory of knowledge in these terms is circular and incoherent.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
You do not know that what your eyes perceive is accurate.
Therefore, you cannot say with 100% certainty that what you saw in a microscopic is accurate. While there is a ridiculously high probably that it is, you cannot know for sure.
That is why information can not be a fact from a single source. If I believe I can see this cigarette I am currently holding, and smell it, and feel it, and taste it, and another independent source (in this case, the person sitting behind me) can also see, smell, feel and taste it there are very few possibilities as to the existence of the cigarette:
I am delusional, either one or both of the following are true: there is no cigarette, there is no person sitting behind me.
There is a cigarette
I am not sentient, but programmed to believe a set series of events
etc, etc
Indeed. So you have to have faith/trust that you are not delusional or a program or any other explanation like that.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
If I perceive something I don't understand in the reality I occupy, I can not be delusional as the ability to think something I'm not smart enough to think myself is a logic error.
In what way? A schizophrenic can know that he doesn't know certain things. The reality he perceives though is much different than ours.
Post by
Orranis
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Hyper, this in itself is self defeating as that up till now you have argued that everything needs to be set by something, and then in mystery you throw your arms in the air and say "God is an exception, obviously, and it could not have been any other original first mover, it had to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Pretty much same thing as above. You name God, despite the evidence you have already provided against it, in absence of being able to comprehend and explain the mysteries of the universe.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Again, you speak of impossibility, but then you make an exception. How was God created then?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Because there
has
to be an
exception
otherwise
nothing would exist
. It doesn't matter what you call it, but it has to exist.
Edit: this is on the "hyper is contradicting himself" post
And by the way hyper while I support your ideas , you do seem to change the meaning of words to fit you sometimes and go on length to prove that your meaning is right, but this might just be bias so just go on.
Yes, but then the whole argument is null and void because the whole argument is that their cannot be an exception, and then it suddenly turns to God. If there has to be an exception, it does not have to be God.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And by the way hyper while I support your ideas , you do seem to change the meaning of words to fit you sometimes and go on length to prove that your meaning is right, but this might just be bias so just go on.
I never "change" meanings of words. When I use a word, I use it exactly how I mean it.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
How you mean it isn't always the accepted term
Actually, yes, they are.
Just because
you
don't accept a term doesn't mean that it isn't accepted.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.