I know a few people on here. If you'd like, I could have them swing by and vote objectively. I will only do this with your permission because I don't want you to think I'm luring you into a trap. Although I may try such tactics in the battle itself. DISCLAIMER.
I had a similar debate on DDO where I had the topic "If heaven is real, it's mostly filled with atheist" and my opponent immediately started off by denying heaven and god when I specifically placed those in the description as necessary presuppositions for the argument. so I can sympathize with you here.
Well, we might have opposite beliefs on just about every conceivable level. But I support your right to express them and I want to see arguments where opponents concede things when it's time to be conceded.
to reference a comedian. "The scientists are running the train, and we'd get there a lot quicker... but the rest of you are slowing us down. Sometimes I wish I could just pull the little pin thing on the cart."
Yeah, I joke about it. But solipsism actually makes me sad to the point where I almost wish nobody discovered it. We could be making leaps and bounds in philosophy right now, but instead we got people telling us we live in the matrix.
Slippery slope huh? I'm skeptical of that claim. Could you define what you think a slippery slope is and how you think claims against solipsism fall into your definition?
What kind of solipsism do you believe in?
Do you think you're the only mind?
If so then why am I disagreeing with you?
Are you living in logical discourse?
If so then I beat you anyway because I am you.
Furthermore, if I am you, then me not believing in the claim means that you don't believe in the claim.
I will admit that one is annoying. But my argument would be that if everything was created X seconds ago, there would have to be some point during that event that I can feel myself being formed because it couldn't happen instantaneously, there would be some physics involved.
I would also ask the person how I got all of my memories in such an accurate way without them first going through my senses. It seems to me that if the world was created X seconds ago, that it would be like the a dystopia movie where my memories aren't matching up right. I would also ask what force could possibly do something like that and ask for evidence of a force that could necessitate this popping into reality.
But it is a really annoying rebuttal, lol. I think it's the reason debaters have historically countered solipsists by walking up to them and knocking them on the head.
I think only thing that should be moderated in voting should be to stop alt accounts as much as possible.
Realistically, with enough people voting, the pool will be too saturated for any one voter to troll a win out.
Even if a voter makes a bunch of alt accounts and gets away with it, there will always be a counter voter who does the opposite to them.
Votes are necessarily opinions since these are debates and nobody agree on everything.
Moderation is nice but has too many downfalls. It can lead to censorship and it can lower the amount of voters to the point where one troll can tip the scales.
I think you might want to slow down there a bit. Lumping communists and Antifa together is just plain foolish. What game your trying to play here? The definition game? That's a really silly game.
Omar is pressupping you. No matter what you throw at him in this subject, he'll just use hard skepticism to "Why?" you to death. You can pin him down, but he'll just jump back into the "Why?" routine at the first chance. Your only options are to give up any chances of productive conversation or to get him to actually answer your questions (good luck with that)
Hi Omar. I say this as a constructive criticism. Not an insult. You need to be less incredulous (disbelieving) when you argue.
That's not entirely true. The pregnant woman doesn't know she's pregnant right when it happens. Even if the woman check as soon as possible, It could be the case that it doesn't register as early as it should on the pregnancy test. I think 5 months is probably a fair standard.
I agree with you there. The term pro-life is kind of loaded and implies that the opposition is pro-death. When in reality, Most of them just advocate for separate reasons and most people who support abortion won't actually go through with one themselves because they know deep down that there is death involved. It's a cognitive dissidence thing.
"How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?"
I have no problem answering, PM me or challenge me to a debate and you'll get your answer. I already told you long before you asked this question that I wanted to move the discussion and you want to ignore what I said and that's why you're not getting an answer right now.
btw, "how can you objective" is not a sentence. You used objective as a verb here and it's an adjective. Please restructure this question after you present it to me somewhere else when you're done with your temper tantrum.
I wasn't talking about that question. I was talking about this one
"So you can't answer it?"
You were trying to use reverse psychology to provoke me into continuing after I said I wanted to move the discussion. I know that playing dumb is kind of your main trick, but I'm not going to insult either of our intelligences by believing that you're actually this incredulous, I've had enough conversations with you to know that's not the case.
I was responding to your incoherent question. You asked how I know if someone's senses are more right. which is nonsense. My response was basically to say that what you said doesn't make sense. How about before you ask me this question again, you actually try thinking critically about what you're really trying to ask me because I'm not sure you actually know.
You know what accurate means. Stop being difficult.
You're confusing self evidence with a bold assertion. This is why I said you need to study what self evidence is. Something isn't self evident because I proclaim it's true. it's self evident because A) The act of attempting to prove it is redundant and shows the absurdity in trying to prove it. and B) The contrary is impossible. My senses meet both of these standards. To prove one's senses is redundant because you use your senses to prove them and to not have senses or for them to be wrong is impossible.
What is truth huh? Man your solipsism has you all messed up. This is actually a good example of self evidence.
Truth is that which is. You see the absurdity? Truth cannot be untrue. You see the impossibility to the contrary? Self evident.
your second question is incoherent and irrelevant to the topic.
That depends on the truth. For identity truths, you know they're true when they're revealed i.e. You see an apples so you know apples exist. For a tautology, it's true if all of the definitions match that which it describes. For states of affairs, we measure consistency, etc. etc.
Either way, I want to simmer this down because there is a real debate going on and we're covering way too many points that are analogous to this debate.
Nobody's senses are more right than another persons. You're being incoherent when you say this.
Once again, correct in respect to what? Correct doesn't mean anything by it self. You might as well being asking me if I deem it to be blah blah blah.
My standard is if it is accurate and it is so yes it is correct.
It's not an "ought" statement it's an "is" statement.
Yes I can know. The cracker is the toast in this case. The toast shoots light at me and I see a cracker, the cracker is not a thing that exist, but rather a caricature of reality. That's what makes it accurate.
No I don't have to assume it. That's where you need to understand self evidence. I'm not assuming anything. I am forced to experience my senses and the consistencies become apparent to me intuitively. That's why children who have never studied philosophy can do logic without prompting, because reality reveals the truth of itself from day one.
I think you've spend quite enough time throwing fake dirt on my first argument and you obviously have only questions and no actual counter arguments, so if you're done with your secular apologist routine, how about you address the other points I posted instead of trying to chop one down with fake skepticism.
We don't perceive the world without senses. In the case of a blind person, they see multicolored static over a background of black because their brain is like a tv without an antenna. That makes senses necessary for perception. So to perceive without senses is impossible.
Correct in respect to what? There is no intrinsic correctness so I need a standard by which to judge it correct. The only standard I care about is if it gives me accurate information, if it does, then it's reliable.
That one went entirely over your head. The whole point is that the cracker is a representation of the toast. That's what makes it objective. They're the same thing.
I know a few people on here. If you'd like, I could have them swing by and vote objectively. I will only do this with your permission because I don't want you to think I'm luring you into a trap. Although I may try such tactics in the battle itself. DISCLAIMER.
You seen the voting rules right? I just wanted you to know so you could Rapp accordingly.
Dope!
I had a similar debate on DDO where I had the topic "If heaven is real, it's mostly filled with atheist" and my opponent immediately started off by denying heaven and god when I specifically placed those in the description as necessary presuppositions for the argument. so I can sympathize with you here.
Well, we might have opposite beliefs on just about every conceivable level. But I support your right to express them and I want to see arguments where opponents concede things when it's time to be conceded.
to reference a comedian. "The scientists are running the train, and we'd get there a lot quicker... but the rest of you are slowing us down. Sometimes I wish I could just pull the little pin thing on the cart."
Yeah, I joke about it. But solipsism actually makes me sad to the point where I almost wish nobody discovered it. We could be making leaps and bounds in philosophy right now, but instead we got people telling us we live in the matrix.
Also, what is the evidence for you huge claim that "it's an indisputable fact"
Light as a feather in fact ;)
Slippery slope huh? I'm skeptical of that claim. Could you define what you think a slippery slope is and how you think claims against solipsism fall into your definition?
What kind of solipsism do you believe in?
Do you think you're the only mind?
If so then why am I disagreeing with you?
Are you living in logical discourse?
If so then I beat you anyway because I am you.
Furthermore, if I am you, then me not believing in the claim means that you don't believe in the claim.
We win :)
I will admit that one is annoying. But my argument would be that if everything was created X seconds ago, there would have to be some point during that event that I can feel myself being formed because it couldn't happen instantaneously, there would be some physics involved.
I would also ask the person how I got all of my memories in such an accurate way without them first going through my senses. It seems to me that if the world was created X seconds ago, that it would be like the a dystopia movie where my memories aren't matching up right. I would also ask what force could possibly do something like that and ask for evidence of a force that could necessitate this popping into reality.
But it is a really annoying rebuttal, lol. I think it's the reason debaters have historically countered solipsists by walking up to them and knocking them on the head.
I think only thing that should be moderated in voting should be to stop alt accounts as much as possible.
Realistically, with enough people voting, the pool will be too saturated for any one voter to troll a win out.
Even if a voter makes a bunch of alt accounts and gets away with it, there will always be a counter voter who does the opposite to them.
Votes are necessarily opinions since these are debates and nobody agree on everything.
Moderation is nice but has too many downfalls. It can lead to censorship and it can lower the amount of voters to the point where one troll can tip the scales.
More voters = Better Results.
Just to clarify. That link I posted was my source. I see that I kind of worded it funny.
Oh dear. I just read your statement. This just heated up. I'm excited. :)
Is that the DDO Killshot?
I stand corrected. the if statement you made threw me off because presupps use that line and I hastily judged without drawing context.
"He is an atheist who supports Donald Trump. Let that sink in."
That seriously did sink in. You just blew my mind. I have no logical reason for this. But that's what happened, lol.
Fair point, but I'm not doing it for his sake. I'm calling him out for trying to spread lies and fake words.
I think you might want to slow down there a bit. Lumping communists and Antifa together is just plain foolish. What game your trying to play here? The definition game? That's a really silly game.
So you made the word up then?
Omar is pressupping you. No matter what you throw at him in this subject, he'll just use hard skepticism to "Why?" you to death. You can pin him down, but he'll just jump back into the "Why?" routine at the first chance. Your only options are to give up any chances of productive conversation or to get him to actually answer your questions (good luck with that)
Hi Omar. I say this as a constructive criticism. Not an insult. You need to be less incredulous (disbelieving) when you argue.
What is alt left? Like Antifa?
That's a nice little factoid. Makes sense. Biblically speaking.
It's certainly a valid argument.
I'm surprised you didn't just go with "Go forth and subdue the Earth"
The quote bar seems to work. Thanks for the tip.
If I paste a Bold Copied image, then it seems to work.
I'll try it, but I think those features don't work on my browser for some reason because I can't even use Bold or Italics.
Thanks though!
I don't know if you're on a computer or not. But I type really fast and I pretty much just write these things off the top off my head.
That's not entirely true. The pregnant woman doesn't know she's pregnant right when it happens. Even if the woman check as soon as possible, It could be the case that it doesn't register as early as it should on the pregnancy test. I think 5 months is probably a fair standard.
I agree with you there. The term pro-life is kind of loaded and implies that the opposition is pro-death. When in reality, Most of them just advocate for separate reasons and most people who support abortion won't actually go through with one themselves because they know deep down that there is death involved. It's a cognitive dissidence thing.
I swear I posted that. Good thing it saved I guess.
I replied, not sure if you got pinged or not. I've never used the forums here.
that works too
that works tag me in it
Excellent question. Now put it somewhere else and I'll answer it.
You mean this old thing right here?
"How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?"
I have no problem answering, PM me or challenge me to a debate and you'll get your answer. I already told you long before you asked this question that I wanted to move the discussion and you want to ignore what I said and that's why you're not getting an answer right now.
btw, "how can you objective" is not a sentence. You used objective as a verb here and it's an adjective. Please restructure this question after you present it to me somewhere else when you're done with your temper tantrum.
So you only care about point scoring huh? Fine. I can do that too.
Since you have refused to move the conversation out of respect for the debaters. I will take that as a defeat for you.
Lol
you see how silly that is?
I know you're young, but grow up kid.
I wasn't talking about that question. I was talking about this one
"So you can't answer it?"
You were trying to use reverse psychology to provoke me into continuing after I said I wanted to move the discussion. I know that playing dumb is kind of your main trick, but I'm not going to insult either of our intelligences by believing that you're actually this incredulous, I've had enough conversations with you to know that's not the case.
You're quite the character Omar. You keep things interesting on here.
lol. I'm not a 10 year old. You really think that trick is going to work?
Move the conversation or end it.
I'm not stealing anymore thunder from this topic. If you want to continue then do what I said before, otherwise, I'm not continuing.
If you want to continue this discussion, you need to
A) move it to private messages.
and
B) post the original points I made in the messages and rebut those as well.
Or we can debate it formally, your choice.
I was responding to your incoherent question. You asked how I know if someone's senses are more right. which is nonsense. My response was basically to say that what you said doesn't make sense. How about before you ask me this question again, you actually try thinking critically about what you're really trying to ask me because I'm not sure you actually know.
You know what accurate means. Stop being difficult.
You're confusing self evidence with a bold assertion. This is why I said you need to study what self evidence is. Something isn't self evident because I proclaim it's true. it's self evident because A) The act of attempting to prove it is redundant and shows the absurdity in trying to prove it. and B) The contrary is impossible. My senses meet both of these standards. To prove one's senses is redundant because you use your senses to prove them and to not have senses or for them to be wrong is impossible.
What is truth huh? Man your solipsism has you all messed up. This is actually a good example of self evidence.
Truth is that which is. You see the absurdity? Truth cannot be untrue. You see the impossibility to the contrary? Self evident.
your second question is incoherent and irrelevant to the topic.
That depends on the truth. For identity truths, you know they're true when they're revealed i.e. You see an apples so you know apples exist. For a tautology, it's true if all of the definitions match that which it describes. For states of affairs, we measure consistency, etc. etc.
What do you mean what's my point? You're the one who brought it up not me. What's YOUR point?
Correct at being accurate.
I will not stop using this as it is a tenant of philosophy. Are you going to tell me to stop using philosophy?
Nope, the truth stays the same, the only thing that wavers is your sensory organs as they slowly rot.
I'm not sure if I care enough about it to debate you on it. How about a rap battle instead?
Either way, I want to simmer this down because there is a real debate going on and we're covering way too many points that are analogous to this debate.
If this is too fast paced for you to handle, we could always debate it formally :)
Nobody's senses are more right than another persons. You're being incoherent when you say this.
Once again, correct in respect to what? Correct doesn't mean anything by it self. You might as well being asking me if I deem it to be blah blah blah.
My standard is if it is accurate and it is so yes it is correct.
It's not an "ought" statement it's an "is" statement.
Yes I can know. The cracker is the toast in this case. The toast shoots light at me and I see a cracker, the cracker is not a thing that exist, but rather a caricature of reality. That's what makes it accurate.
No I don't have to assume it. That's where you need to understand self evidence. I'm not assuming anything. I am forced to experience my senses and the consistencies become apparent to me intuitively. That's why children who have never studied philosophy can do logic without prompting, because reality reveals the truth of itself from day one.
I think you've spend quite enough time throwing fake dirt on my first argument and you obviously have only questions and no actual counter arguments, so if you're done with your secular apologist routine, how about you address the other points I posted instead of trying to chop one down with fake skepticism.
We don't perceive the world without senses. In the case of a blind person, they see multicolored static over a background of black because their brain is like a tv without an antenna. That makes senses necessary for perception. So to perceive without senses is impossible.
Correct in respect to what? There is no intrinsic correctness so I need a standard by which to judge it correct. The only standard I care about is if it gives me accurate information, if it does, then it's reliable.
That one went entirely over your head. The whole point is that the cracker is a representation of the toast. That's what makes it objective. They're the same thing.