TheRealNihilist

Evidence is meant to be given to the perception.  The perception itself is not part of the proof.  it's a tool. 

Not sure. 

Well modern Platonists don't ALWAYS say they're real.  But he might say that we can't know they're not real.  He might think it's like a physical property. I"m not sure because he's ambiguous as to his specific beliefs. 

That's an interesting thought experiment and very similar to civil court.  I would use civil court as your model for that. I'm not sure if it would be the ideal system, but it could have benefits. 

Well X means itself obviously.

It would be nice if laws worked that way.  But we have to share space with everybody's ideas unfortunately.  It's like a necessary evil, figuratively speaking.  

You should look into this guy name Alex Malpass on youtube.  he did a discussion with Matt slick and Matt D and there's not a lot of stuff about him but he has some interesting ideas about philosophy.  I think he's a Platonist. 

If God knows I am going to hell, and God is never wrong, then I have no choice but to go to hell.

It is contradictory to say that I have a choice, but at the same time God knows what that choice will be. Choice implies two or more possible alternatives. If God knows which alternative I will take, and God is never wrong, then only one alternative is actually possible. Therefore no choice exists.

If you're saying you would do a good deed naturally expecting that you might get something back in the future and that was you sole motivation for doing it, then yes, then would be egoism. It's what most people do intuitively. It's true that the person might never reciprocate.  But if they didn't, they could never get a favor from you in the future, so it feeds into itself.  Person A wants a future favor and gives a favor. Person B realizes they get can favors from Person A, so they give a favor back to Person A knowing that Person A has a history of giving favors and that raises their confidence level in getting back a favor.  After exchanging enough favors.  Both people have confidence they will get something in return and have no problem giving favors because there has been a precedent established. 

If by focus, you mean isolate, then yes.

I could know everything about the composition of lightning, but that I can't know about every interaction because it would have to interact with things that I don't know fully. 

Well you're saying A because A.

Look up "Agrippa's Trilemma" 

which is to say you take the absolute minimum amount of axioms that you have to and that makes it as true as possible. 

Philosophically speaking.  Egoism would likely lead to a pretty crappy world.

However, most claims with more than two options can also be reduced to more simple self evident claims and this could sometimes allow you to eliminate the possibilities on an individual level to make the bigger possibility easier to discover. 

You're doing what's called a whole of the part fallacy (not the part of the whole.  that's a different fallacy)  where you say that the whole is unknown without considering that we can still know the parts. 

Then you just accepted an identity truth based on self evidence.

it doesn't push the axiom in to the infinite regress. 

then it's just an abstract fantasy and it's true under your worldview which is problematic for you. 

If you don't have the knowledge than you don't. 

You could say it's right or wrong in respect to the standard yes.  There is no intrinsic right or wrong.  "right" means that it fits a given standard and "wrong" means it doesn't.  This applies to all words that assess values in a binary way. It's like Boolean logic that computers use.

That's exactly what self evidence is except self evidence takes the extra step of adding impossibility of the contrary. 

Sure, it's a value statement.  Do you want your logic to be wrong?

Assuming and presupposing are the same in this case.  a presupposition is an assumption without evidence.  to "assume" is to just act in the role of something.  If I "assume" ownership of someone's car.  I'm acting as if the car belongs to me.  If I'm making that assumption without evidence.  Then I'm presupposing that I own the car. 

  You're trying to tell me I can't know what lightning is unless I know it down to the last atom. 

 If you're going to ask for evidence that you saw something then you're being foolish. Even if the thing you saw was wrong, you still saw it.

Just because a person shares your presupposition doesn't make it true.  That's an ad populum argument and it's not justified in this case.

You can critique my self evidence all day but at least my beliefs don't open up room for things like unicorns.  

Any statement can be an axiom.  I could invent a philosophy right now called axiomism and say that you just believe everything axiomatically.  and you would end up believing contradictory things. 

You might feel justified to go try flying and then get killed. 

So it would work better for us if it wasn't true, but it is so we deal with it. 

No, you think you don't have the knowledge.

Senses aren't "correct" or "incorrect"  They just are.

 So you can't just say "is it correct" and then turn around and say "we can't know the standard"  You're contradicting yourself. 

What 'feel' do you want the image to have?

What trait do you admire more between being severely appealing and severely elusive.

If you were on a desert island and ended up pitted between the option of being the alpha male/female or the cuck/loser what would you be on the food chain between the two?

Are you someone who enjoys competition or wishes it wasn't a part of life?     

So in that example you gave, you just used self evidence without realizing it. 

But obviously we want that system to be good right?

then why not just say I don't know?  Presupposing something you don't know is exactly how you end up at theism. 

"How does lightning happen?  I don't know, let's presuppose it was Zeus"  Case and point. 

But not knowing why the proof works doesn't change the fact that it works.  

"How does lightning happen?  I don't know, but it does" Case and point. 

But if you assume your foundation then doesn't that mean you can't give a strong opinion about anything?  

Okay, the person talks about the axioms and agrees with you.  Does that make them true?

I suppose this would get you through the debate, but what about life? 

because what we do know is still true and it works for us and every claim we make about what we do know will still be true.

but you can't deny the fact that it's an atom and you can't deny that it works the way we see it. 

Okay, so you've said this a few times.  What makes something correct?  If I am hungry and I want to stop being hungry and I eat a cracker, how is that not correct?  I fed myself didn't I?  Does it matter what the cracker is made of?  It feeds me right? I had no problem picking it up right?  It's useful, our senses don't care about being "right" or "wrong" about things.  They just are. 

Also.  I'm not arguing in bad faith just because I don't take axioms.  If I presupposed, then I'd be arguing in bad faith.  I have a standard and I am yet to have my standard disproven by anyone so that's good faith arguing in my opinion. 

then why leave it unjustified?

The problem is that if you are allowed to presuppose axioms, then anybody can presuppose anything. 

What if all of your arguments come from bad axioms?

What if you think you're mostly logical, but you're actually illogical in some places and you can't tell because you didn't bother to justify your beliefs.

That's not the same as your reality being you.  If you were reality, then you should be able to control external things because they're just part of your brain.  But you can't. 

You should be able to use those tools to get you to external.

pragmatism

foundationalism

coherentism

infinitism

platonism. 

Not necessarily. I like tacos, but I don't care about them

Well if you believe in axioms then our beliefs would already be pretty close to each other.  My belief is basically foundationalism where a person justifies the axiom.  I don't use the term axiom because it necessarily implies that the belief is not justified and I think it is justified.  

The other issue this would cause for us is we might disagree about how much we can know. 

I think we can know any specific belief to a metaphysical degree and some we can't. 

How about you? 

He believes that the laws of logic can't be justified because you have to use the laws of logic.  Under my worldview, logic justifying itself is just self evidence. 

So that's why no matter what definition you bring, they're going to define the words in the definition over and over until we figure out exactly what you're actually saying.  This stops people from using word tricks. 

Sure.  "This is a rock" is a self evidence proof because I pointed at it and named it as such.

I was playing the role of the skeptic and I pushed you to a presupposition that you couldn't justify so my skepticism was justified because you couldn't justify your foundation. 

The logic is a proof that comes after you've already verified the logic with self evidence.

So you're still ultimately going from self evidence to the proof but you 're just adding logic as an extra step and getting a similar tree that you would see in coherentism except I have a base. 

you have to show me an example of something that is both obvious and the contrary is impossible that is also not true.  Can you do that? 

If something is consistently wrong it's the same as being right that's the point.

 It doesn't matter if I know whether it's wrong or right because i'll still get the result I want.

If something goes from consistently right to consistently wrong, then we would notice.  If gravity went from working to not working, then we would notice right? 

Okay, we need thoughts for practical reasons.  What's your point? 

A belief is an assumption if it does not have justification.  So it depends on the belief. 

You could assume that you're rational and you might be right, but if you're assuming, then you can't know your right. 

One thing you need to understand in epistemology is that philosophers don't care about what definition you bring to the table at all.  They do something called "fleshing the word out"

What does it mean that something doesn't need to be proven? Lets flesh it out.  Well it would mean that it would be so obvious that the act of proving it would be silly right?  If something is obvious wouldn't it be silly to try to prove it?  That's why I said that proving it would be redundant.  As for the impossibility of the contrary.  I kind of took a short cut here and that's my fault so I'll explain.  The impossibility to the contrary is not specifically part of the self evidence definition.  What happened was that historically, self evidence use to only require that it was ridiculously easy to prove, ergo obvious and not needing to be proved.  However, philosophers eventually realized that things that do not exist could slide by this definition, so then it was decided that the impossibility of the contrary was a better standard.  However, anything that meets the impossibility of the contrary standard tends to be self evident because more complicated things generally can't be proved this way.  Does that make more sense?

You were playing the role of the skeptic.  You were suppose to make me budge. 

This is the point where you could have pushed me into the infinite regress if you could show the absurdity of self evidence. 

If you could show an example of self evidence being absurd, then you would have knocked my position down.

The negative of a photo is when the photo is inverted in colors.  That's what would happen if we seen reality consistently wrong.  Reality would look all messed up, but since it's consistent, we could still navigate it.  The thing to notice here is that if we can still navigate it.  Then we can still know things. 

we should assume that we seek knowledge to help us in the world right?

What's more helpful than something that's also practical?

How would you find knowledge without using your senses? 

You could use your thoughts, but what kind of thoughts would you even have without your senses?  I imagine not very many. 

So the key for a foundationalist is to find the justification for you axiom and it can't be a belief. that's why I use self evidence.  Everything self evident is a tautologies, and a tautology isn't really a belief per se, it's like a definitional truth.

1%

Kill all the poor people! 

Well I can only say that I was not at all trying to be mean.

If this is how you saw it I apologize.

A joke is something you may do, especially in this context, to ingratiate yourself to others

 I tried to lighten the mood because I was slightly self conscious that your comment was obvious so I just announced that fact so we could laugh about it.

Making fun of someone targets them to attempt to lower them to make yourself look taller and is exploitive to increase your own position.  Not something I do.

it's self evident.

so he still acts as if reality is objective and that's where he differs from you and the reason for this as he said in the video is

"Because our senses are the only tool we have" which makes it necessary and proves the possibility of the contrary, and self evidence, etc. etc. 

Honestly, even if you came back and argued with me as a foundationalist,

Nope I don't do presuppositions because they're not illogical.

 That's why I use self evidence.

Self evidence makes way more sense than anything else because it's the only thing stops the infinite regress and give you justification.

Even if you don't think it's true.

Okay so your proof is to take a picture and then presuppose it's true?  Really Omar?  Really? This big foundation for you logic is a flimsy presupposition? Pictures are not your senses.  I find it dubious that you rely on a camera more than your eyeballs.  

So you think reality is subjective because you can't see the whole cosmos at once?  You realize this does not fit the definition of subjective right?

1. All creation -whose existence is not self-sufficient- is contingent on a creator, a necessary being whose existence is self-sufficient. 

2. This creator must be singular, for supposing multiple such creators would lead to a logical contradiction.

3. This creator must be transcendent (i.e. different from the creation), for it is not contingent as creation is.

4. This creator must be absolute, for all creation is equally contingent on the creator.

=> I hope this makes it easier to understand.

- Because it's the wrong word...?

- Wut?

but these notions rarely hold against logical rigor.

If you have two different creators each 50%, then they are both restricted by each-other, which makes them contingent. A contingent being can not be God.

 - What is "sufficient on humans souls"?

- Wut?

- Then I can't help you. If translation of the verse is what you're looking for, then I provided not one not two but SEVEN from renown translations.  

- God = necessary being =/= contingent being. God is uncaused first cause, thus can not be caused (aka contingent).

- Because it strictly contradicts it.

http://quran.com/112/2

his is a very standard definition in Islamic Theology. I referred the chapter, Surah 112 (Ikhalas, aka Tawheed):

(112:1) Qul Huwa Allahu ahad = "Say, He is Allah, the One" (1).

(112:2) Allahu assamad = "Allah, the Absolute [Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend]" (2).

(112:3) Lam yalid walam yoolad = "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (3)

(112:4) Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad = "And there is none like unto Him" (4)

=> Theologically, inferred from the scripture, Allah is: singular (1), absolute (2), self-sufficient/necessary (2-3) &  transcendent -disjoint from creation- being(4-3). Thus, conceptually, a being which has all these 4 attributes is hence identified with Allah. All the other attributes of God follow naturally from these.

- Dude! I don't care what site you use, your obstinate ignorance is not my issue...

- LOL! You can't even read Arabic, get outta here!

I don't get annoyed on this site because people are probably as hard headed as me. Plus I do not care enough about DART to let it annoy me. But I have threads

This is just annoying, i am post 22 i think

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1378

I finished up Paradise PD before starting up Bojack. I am only on Season 1, but it is already better than Paradise PD right now

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2018/09/14/14-bojack-horseman.w700.h700.jpg

Wdym

I wasn't annoyed lol