There's a concept in logic called coherence. The idea is that if you have logical idea X, that it must be able to cohere to the rest of your worldview Y. So while Quantum mechanics does introduce it's own set of strange rules, the fact is that all of these rules cohere with the model for physics.
It's like saying that a building is not following the same rules as a person in physics. While the building might react differently to certain physical stimuli, it's only because the building has different variables that the human does. If the human had similar size and composition, then the human would have more physics in common with the building.
Similarly, quantum particles react the way they do because of their size which changes which forces they can interact with and how those force impact them. So the reason that particles don't respond the same to Newtonian physics is because some of the forces in that model are too big to react with the particle so we have a logical reason for the difference of interaction.
The problem with The God proposition is that the claim itself doesn't give us any logical reason to believe that god is exceptional in terms of physics. So unless we can make an observation that leads us to that conclusion, then it's not justified to make a special exception.
Round 1: Just provide your argument against My Claim or for your opposite Claim
Round 2: You rebuttal my arguments from round 1.
Round 3: You Rebuttal my Rebuttal from round 2
Round 4: We each Send each other a list of questions we want answered about our opponent's position.
Round 5: We each Quote and Answer the questions and then make closing statements.
Well I don't know why I would mention denial of the self. You already conceded the existence of the self and the external.
Furthermore, My first Premise is the cognito so it would be bad faith arguing on my part.
I'm aware of my BoP. I don't know what you mean by disallowed. Could you elaborate?
Be aware that I am allowed to appeal to probability to an extent. Induction is valid logic and there are literally things precedented to be consistently induced 100% of the time like gravity for instance. So I reject what I call pseudo skeptical claims that "we can never know X" Because some things can be known absolutely. .
Tautologies for instance are quite knowable because we define them and we can tailor them to reality. Even if reality was wrong. Our tautology would still be true of our abstraction of reality.
Theories when mapped to completely induce a logical set, are also tautologies. So these are the foundations by which I build my BoP.
I suppose gambling is one way to go. Although I would say that you'll never have a good standard by which to judge reality and will necessarily lead yourself to more false beliefs.
I would say that using a thought process that actually gets you to reality will be tried and tested and will guarantee you a better foundation even if it is false. But at least you tacitly accept reality. Far be it from me to shake you from that. To quote Matt Dillahunty.
"If you tell me that you're going to go murder people if you don't go to church, then I want your ass in church."
I find that vacuous because it's a neutral position when the evidence is far from neutral.
This stems from a recurring problem in philosophy.
People tend to have a poor standard for how they should falsify claims of existence.
Furthermore, people tend to have a poor standard for proving nonexistence claims as well.
We get all the evidence we need from our perception to verify reality. Even if reality was not how we see it (which technically, it's not depending on how you look at it. I can elaborate on this if you wish), the one thing that we can say for sure is that it's consistent. The law of gravity doesn't change, so even if we're not perceiving gravity correctly, we are perceiving it congruently. Therefore, as long as our response to gravity as we see it translate into our intended action in objective reality, then it doesn't matter if the picture isn't perfectly attuned.
So if we can get accurate information out of a Real or Fake reality, then the information is necessarily true by the metric we use for survival and general navigation of reality.
I would probably take Pro's side in the topic but I would also add that I believe altruism can be reached by purely selfish means.
Thanks for the vote
Nice to see you on here Buddy!!.
Anyway.
There's a concept in logic called coherence. The idea is that if you have logical idea X, that it must be able to cohere to the rest of your worldview Y. So while Quantum mechanics does introduce it's own set of strange rules, the fact is that all of these rules cohere with the model for physics.
It's like saying that a building is not following the same rules as a person in physics. While the building might react differently to certain physical stimuli, it's only because the building has different variables that the human does. If the human had similar size and composition, then the human would have more physics in common with the building.
Similarly, quantum particles react the way they do because of their size which changes which forces they can interact with and how those force impact them. So the reason that particles don't respond the same to Newtonian physics is because some of the forces in that model are too big to react with the particle so we have a logical reason for the difference of interaction.
The problem with The God proposition is that the claim itself doesn't give us any logical reason to believe that god is exceptional in terms of physics. So unless we can make an observation that leads us to that conclusion, then it's not justified to make a special exception.
I liked your R3.
I'm glad somebody caught that. I think my opponent caught it too because he made a remark about it.
Thanks!
This should be a fun debate. Even though we disagree profusely on many things, you have a high level of logic compared to the average debater.
lol, I just refreshed at the right time I guess.
I'll argue for The New Covenant only. However, I think you and I both know that most Christians apply both to their lives.
I usually don't like to brag, but I went ham that time. :)
Typo on line 7. suppose to be "better than yours"
Okay well what do you mean by "law unto itself"
Could I get an example of what this would be and how it would be less observable than gravity?
Thanks for the votes.
despite the observations I made in the rap battle, I do like RM's raps and I think that if he hones his skills he'd be a total monster on the mic.
thanks for the vote
I was a door to door salesman and I'm a guy and I don't find either of those things offensive.
Furthermore, while I make no active attempts to offend people, I am not responsible for your personal offense.
If you're not a guy, then state as much and I can duly note it.
Thank you for you time.
I like pilot's topic better, lol. The other guy sounds like a door to door salesman
I said "move into interrogations" at the end of R2, but I actually meant "Rejoinders"
Wouldn't that be the same as calling god Gravity and the like?
Line 15 was suppose to end with "Boast" Not Roast.
Something new I'm trying out.
Round 1: Just provide your argument against My Claim or for your opposite Claim
Round 2: You rebuttal my arguments from round 1.
Round 3: You Rebuttal my Rebuttal from round 2
Round 4: We each Send each other a list of questions we want answered about our opponent's position.
Round 5: We each Quote and Answer the questions and then make closing statements.
I got you next time. ;)
Thanks for the Battle. Two more to go, lol.
Sick rhyme. I like it
Meant to say *Peel it* sad typo
I appreciate you pointing out your objectivity, but it's all good.
I would be a fool to think that this argument doesn't sound good to some people.
It's not like I'm the arbiter of good evidence.
I have my biases as well whether I want to or not.
Indeed
There are divided opinions about that very topic here, lol.
I'm warmed up this time. I have 3 battels going with RM lol
Good Debate. I wish you would have at least posted your rejoinder in the last round though.
I cuss, when the rap needs it. I'm neutral on cussing but I don't over do it because it makes the rap sound boring
Thanks for accepting.
Don't hold back on the insults.
Sweet, thanks
Can I accept this?
Well I don't know why I would mention denial of the self. You already conceded the existence of the self and the external.
Furthermore, My first Premise is the cognito so it would be bad faith arguing on my part.
I'm aware of my BoP. I don't know what you mean by disallowed. Could you elaborate?
Be aware that I am allowed to appeal to probability to an extent. Induction is valid logic and there are literally things precedented to be consistently induced 100% of the time like gravity for instance. So I reject what I call pseudo skeptical claims that "we can never know X" Because some things can be known absolutely. .
Tautologies for instance are quite knowable because we define them and we can tailor them to reality. Even if reality was wrong. Our tautology would still be true of our abstraction of reality.
Theories when mapped to completely induce a logical set, are also tautologies. So these are the foundations by which I build my BoP.
As for determinism, I'm not in the mood to tug on that particular thread at the moment. Maybe later. I've spent too much time arguing it with Omar
to your first statement.... Fair enough
I suppose gambling is one way to go. Although I would say that you'll never have a good standard by which to judge reality and will necessarily lead yourself to more false beliefs.
I would say that using a thought process that actually gets you to reality will be tried and tested and will guarantee you a better foundation even if it is false. But at least you tacitly accept reality. Far be it from me to shake you from that. To quote Matt Dillahunty.
"If you tell me that you're going to go murder people if you don't go to church, then I want your ass in church."
Oh dear. Don't tell me you're a determinist as well.
Np!
How about saying they're smart because they Con us into taking care of them and never work while we feed them and let them hump things.
Thoughts?
False
You're allowed to write "tied in all others" without an explanation as long as you explain it when you tie and argument point.
I find that vacuous because it's a neutral position when the evidence is far from neutral.
This stems from a recurring problem in philosophy.
People tend to have a poor standard for how they should falsify claims of existence.
Furthermore, people tend to have a poor standard for proving nonexistence claims as well.
We get all the evidence we need from our perception to verify reality. Even if reality was not how we see it (which technically, it's not depending on how you look at it. I can elaborate on this if you wish), the one thing that we can say for sure is that it's consistent. The law of gravity doesn't change, so even if we're not perceiving gravity correctly, we are perceiving it congruently. Therefore, as long as our response to gravity as we see it translate into our intended action in objective reality, then it doesn't matter if the picture isn't perfectly attuned.
So if we can get accurate information out of a Real or Fake reality, then the information is necessarily true by the metric we use for survival and general navigation of reality.
Typo. Line 13. Meant to say "Before I'm done having my fun"
Typo, Line 7 Meant to be "lack of style". although it almost still works, lol. I should have tried to play it off.
Duly noted
lol
No I haven't, what's it about?
I had so many typos. I should have proof read.
Typo *Ass Proper* instead of *as proper*