- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk"Also is there a universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument?"
So if it is not a matter of opinion is there a universal standard of what equates a bad argument?
How about a good argument that is meant to support a lie?
Also is there a universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument?
Suppose we argue for and against the position "There is a universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument."
Suppose we further argue for and against the position "The universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument is X."
How do we argue these positions without committing the error of affirming the consequent (begging the question)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
After all, the standard we would apply to affirm that there is a universal standard, and to affirm what we say it is, is the universal standard, isn't it?
Instead, what there is, is intersubjective agreement on rules that are germane to the area of thought. An example would be peer review of reproducible experiments. Another example would be conformity with the teachings of a particular sacred book.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWith regards to your delusions, yes, I do not have to justify not accepting them as real. I do justify whatever beliefs of my own that I have - although to a large extent, it is 'knowledge' rather than 'belief' as I can justify it.
And you claim simply to lack belief so you don't have to justify anything.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadSurely if something really is a delusion, it should be easy to justify why you think it is a delusion.
With regards to your delusions, yes, I do not have to justify not accepting them as real. I do justify whatever beliefs of my own that I have - although to a large extent, it is 'knowledge' rather than 'belief' as I can justify it.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes, it would be easy. It is, however, not required.
Surely if something really is a delusion, it should be easy to justify why you think it is a delusion.
Here is a very brief justification:
1. The claims are extraordinary and should be treated as a delusion until proven otherwise. (this is the main justification).
2. You cannot justify it - suggesting it is a delusion.
3. You lie about it - suggesting you know yourself that it is a delusion.
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Someone else may think it is proven and you may think it is not.
Yes, it would be easy. It is, however, not required.
Here is a very brief justification:
1. The claims are extraordinary and should be treated as a delusion until proven otherwise. (this is the main justification)
2. You cannot justify it - suggesting it is a delusion.
3. You lie about it - suggesting you know yourself that it is a delusion.
2. Someone else may think I can justify it, whereas you think I can't.
3. You may think I am lying whereas actually I am not.
So how do you prove that you are right and the other person is wrong when you disagree on what constitutes 'proof'?
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkQuite so. But given that they are keeping it to themselves there is nothing I can do about that. A secret proof is no use to me. Thus, to me, it remains unproven, and I am fully justified in continuing to believe it is a delusion.
1. Someone else may think it is proven and you may think it is not.
2. Someone else may think I can justify it, whereas you think I can't.
Again, that is for them to think, not for me to think. The fact that you fail to justify it publicly is all that counts to me.
3. You may think I am lying whereas actually I am not.
There are times when I know you are lying.
So how do you prove that you are right and the other person is wrong when you disagree on what constitutes 'proof'?
I do not need to prove that I am right and the other person is wrong. I only need to satisfy myself that I am right and they are wrong. I am usually open to hearing argument that I may be wrong.
But that is quite a different issue from the question of whether my justification for believe you are delusional is valid.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMany people that were atheist before but now believe in God were convinced by something. And whatever it is that convinced them will not necessarily convince you, because different people are convinced by different things.
Quite so. But given that they are keeping it to themselves there is nothing I can do about that. A secret proof is no use to me. Thus, to me, it remains unproven, and I am fully justified in continuing to believe it is a delusion.
[b]2. Someone else may think I can justify it, whereas you think I can't.
Again, that is for them to think, not for me ...[text shortened]... ent issue from the question of whether my justification for believe you are delusional is valid.[/b]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDo you have a point? Why do you keep on repeating over and over, page after page, that people think differently? It doesn't negate anything I have said, nor does it change the fact that you are deluded.
Many people that were atheist before but now believe in God were convinced by something. And whatever it is that convinced them will not necessarily convince you, because different people are convinced by different things.
That people are convinced that God exists, is obvious. That doesn't mean they have good justification for their convictions. It is notable that not one single theist in this forum is willing to stand up and justify their beliefs (not you, and not even Suzzy who pointed it out).
You are notably so insecure about your beliefs that you mostly don't talk about them and spend most of your time asking silly questions to which you don't appear to listen to the responses
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI submitted my justification for my belief in the second post in this thread and reiterated it later down the page.
That people are convinced that God exists, is obvious. That doesn't mean they have good justification for their convictions. It is notable that not one single theist in this forum is willing to stand up and justify their beliefs (not you, and not even Suzzy who pointed it out).
That you don't believe it doesn't really make it not a justification.
Rather than justification, what you mean is convince me.
Sorry, that's not my job, or my concern. If you don't buy it, it's pretty much your problem, not mine.
12 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd in my response to that post, you will note, I pointed out that you were using 'faith' in a very different way from the intention of the OP.
I submitted my justification for my belief in the second post in this thread and reiterated it later down the page.
You did not attempt to justify your belief. You attempted to justify, given existing belief, having faith.
That you don't believe it doesn't really make it not a justification.
It is not that I don't believe it, it is that you didn't give a justification for your beliefs. If I am wrong, then perhaps you could explain further. What I read in your post was an explanation for why you have faith in a person you believe in, not an explanation for why you believe in him. (yes the words are ambiguous, but I hope you get what I mean).
Rather than justification, what you mean is convince me.
No, that is not what I mean. It is notable that in your post you recognised the meaning that LJ had used for 'justification' then went right ahead and used a different meaning.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by SuzianneThis is the stupidest comment I've read in these forums for years. People who believe nothing, and other than possibly new born children I doubt such a person exists, have no beliefs which can contradict new information. On the other hand those that do believe things are far more likely to fail to recognize truth as there is the risk that it contradicts their prior beliefs.
To those who don't believe anything, even truth is a lie.