05 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseDemanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around.
[b]Your selective referencing of my post
Demanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around. Assuming you are/get married, will it take 20 years of 24-hour camera surveillance of your wife to justify a belief that she won’t cheat on you?[/b]
With all due respect, we are talking about epistemic justification here. Despite whatever misconceptions you may have, such justification (and any demand made thereof) is not concomitant with that which makes one more boring and/or less trusting of others.
Assuming you are/get married, will it take 20 years of 24-hour camera surveillance of your wife to justify a belief that she won’t cheat on you?
No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhitehead"It is so because I define it as so." Your semantic game is nothing but circular reasoning and question begging.
'eternal'
This has two possible meanings:
1. All time. As time is merely a property of the universe it would have no real meaning outside the universe.
2. Independant of time. In this case you could be right that it would hold meaning 'outside' the 'universe' but I have a feeling that both 'outside' and 'universe' would also need some redifining.
'c ...[text shortened]... is of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloWith all due respect...
[b]Demanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around.
With all due respect, we are talking about epistemic justification here. Despite whatever misconceptions you may have, such justification (and any demand made thereof) is not concomitant with that which makes one more boring ...[text shortened]... ef that she won’t cheat on you?[/b]
No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?[/b]
Oh please, LJ, I have none due. If any, it should be you fella's with prestigious Phd's behind yer names. I was being the proverbial ass (for all you kids out there, this is the biblical term for a donkey).
No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?
It (thankfully) proved that you weren't consequential in your skepticism of life; there are some things that you would readily believe until proven wrong. My main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything is that they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, what I continue to fail to understand is why you consider it unreasonable to demand some justification in favor of my putting 'trust' in another. I doubt you would entrust the care of your children, for example, to some complete stranger on the street who promises to 'take real good care of 'em, ya hear'; but surely you might conceivably entrust the care of your children to a well-known relative. Why is that Halitose? Isn't it the case that you often shell out or withhold 'trust' in something based on the available evidence and inductive principles? My putting 'trust' in my wife is not the same as one's blind faith in adopting unjustified beliefs.
[b]With all due respect...
Oh please, LJ, I have none due. If any, it should be you fella's with prestigious Phd's behind yer names. I was being the proverbial ass (for all you kids out there, this is the biblical term for a donkey).
No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?
It (thankfully) proved that you weren't consequen ...[text shortened]... t they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.[/b]
there are some things that you would readily believe until proven wrong.
Of course. I am a fallibilist, and I am willing to base belief on sufficient defeasible evidence. But there does need to be sufficient evidence to warrant such belief. If you think my 'No' answer above demonstrates that I go around willy-nilly pulling beliefs out my arse, then I disagree. In that case, you'll need to explain to me how my putting 'trust' in another is necessarily an act of blind faith.
My main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything...
How many people do you know require 'irrefutable' evidence (in terms of certainy principle or something)? The vast majority are just looking for sufficiently compelling evidence. That's really not that much to ask when it comes to belief-building. But I think I get your jist...
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!
'eternal'
This has two possible meanings:
1. All time. As time is merely a property of the universe it would have no real meaning outside the universe.
2. Independant of time. In this case you could be right that it would hold meaning 'outside' the 'universe' but I have a feeling that both 'outside' and 'universe' would also need some redifining.
'c ...[text shortened]... is of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!
For instance, thought.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseMy main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything is that they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.
[b]With all due respect...
Oh please, LJ, I have none due. If any, it should be you fella's with prestigious Phd's behind yer names. I was being the proverbial ass (for all you kids out there, this is the biblical term for a donkey).
No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?
It (thankfully) proved that you weren't consequen ...[text shortened]... t they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.[/b]
Appeal to emotion fallacy, I think.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZAll roads of evidence go down that path, you stop where you are
If I say that the Big Bang caused the universe then there is the question, what caused the Big Bang? That question can't be answered until the makeup of the material involved in the Big Bang are known. For all we know time may not have existed prior to the Big Bang making the concept of existance before it unanswerable. And if time did exist before the Big ...[text shortened]... question at the base as a starting point.
Why waste time trying to answer the unanswerable?
happy, but that may not be the end of the questions for another.
Kelly
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, then I propose open season! I figure if we don't have to justify our statements in fact then we're free to say anything in this debate! Go to it people, make outrageous statements, and whenever anyone challenges you, just give them the thumb!
Knowing scott and his materialist stance, I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I know that makes me an assumptive t%$d, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
I'll start!! Hal - Jesus loves being sodomised by a transvestite latino!