Post Reply
Page 9 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
Switch to Forum Live View Faith IS Substance; Faith IS Evidence
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 10:17PM #81
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:46PM, Thetanager wrote:


Why should we have a default state? Isn't that just making an assumption?



In this case, having a default state keeps me from making an assumption.  Think of it, until shown otherwise, you don't think that two things are related.  That keeps you from assuming that they are related, but does not exclude you from seeing them as related if they really are.  



Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Thetanager wrote:


Wouldn't your logic here also work for the other side? There is no reason to think they are different (you are only defaulting to just assuming they are). As long as there is no reason to think that they are different, there is no reason to believe that they are.




Arguments are had and wars are fought over those that think things are related before they can show it, and they are usually had and fought with those that think two other things that are related before they can show it.  Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps this is itself an assumption.  However I would not put it on par with the assumptions you are promoting. 



all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 11:46AM #82
Thetanager
Posts: 1,445

Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:04PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:


Then one must wonder, really, how far is it relevant? Pretty much what I was getting at in a previous post. At some point, as the scope increases, it becomes irrelevant.



I think that is a false connection to make. The increasing scope does not change the validity or relevance of the argument at all. Sure life can go on without it, but its not irrelevant to truth. The only way it would change the validity would be, perhaps, if you assume that the further we go back the more reason we have to believe reality was not logical a long time ago. Saying there is a vast, near unthinkable span of time does not change the logic of the argument. And it is the logic of the argument that you need to show as invalid for the first cause being uncaused.


Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:04PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:


Nam, et all, have a pretty good case. Lets face it, we're relying on extrapolation from a few things that really don't make sense to us any other way. Not a good thing to base an argument off of. My beliefs, and I hope your beliefs have a basis other than that. By Loki's goat tether, we're both theists and we can't gather enough agreement between each other to form a coherent argument.



What do you mean by "relying on extrapolation from a few things that really don't make sense to us any other way?" My argument relies on my existence, our view of it being possible and the logic of where existence can (ultimately) come from for such a creature as me. That does not mean we can know everything about it, or that we cannot gain further insight past its uncaused nature. That does not mean that this argument (or others like it) cannot have a more local impact the further we follow the logic, either.


Disagreement, even between theists, does not mean theists cannot or do not base/support (some of) their beliefs off of evidence. Certainly, we do not base everything off of this argument or another argument or only logical arguments. Our beliefs have a wider basis than that and so do non-theists and atheists. Here I was simply talking about a very specific part of my belief that Nam, et al, seemed to say was not there at all.


Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:04PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:


A dog, a potato, a desk, a vending machine, anything. If that it is a horse, and what is a horse are separate concepts, anything can be what a horse is, and a horse can be what anything else is.



I'm not following that logic. I'm saying that what it means to be a horse is a different concept than "that" horse walking around over there breathing and eating grass. All things are made up of matter. Philosphers making the essence/existence distinction say that it is the essence, the "what" that makes that chunk of matter what it is. Humans and horses are both made of matter, but we are different "whats." Existence is the act of that "what" being a "that." But we can have the idea of a "what" (horse-ness) without a "that" (if all horses died).


Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:04PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:


And we are back to the tree falling in the forest. If there is no one to perceive the horse-ness, does it really exist?



And we both answered yes, before, right? First, the qualities that make a horse a horse come from the actual reality, the horse...not the perceiver. If there is no perceiver, there is still a "what," an essence, a horse. Second, that reality is the basis for a perceiver grasping what it means for a horse to be a horse. Third, while it is a reality, it is "that" horse over there eating grass, it does not have to be a reality (animals can go exstinct, for example). Yet that extinction does not change what it meant for a horse to be a horse, for there to be the concept of horse-ness.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 11:56AM #83
Thetanager
Posts: 1,445

Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:17PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:


In this case, having a default state keeps me from making an assumption. Think of it, until shown otherwise, you don't think that two things are related. That keeps you from assuming that they are related, but does not exclude you from seeing them as related if they really are.



I disagree; you are making an assumption. Someone arguing the opposite of you could make the same statements. Until shown otherwise, you don't think the two things are different. This keeps you from making an assumption that they are different, but does not exclude you from changing your mind if new evidence is presented.


My point is that by saying "until shown otherwise, you don't think that two things are related" you are assuming they are different with no reason (yet) to do so. Both positions are assumptions. A state free from assumptions would be to say something like "I don't know if they are related or different, let us look at the evidence and see if there is clarity on one or the other." We should look at the evidence, reason, add experience, etc. and then make a decision, not begin with making the other side have the burden of proof of swaying you from your assumption. Both sides have burden of proof for their position and need to challenge the other side's burden.


Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:17PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:


Arguments are had and wars are fought over those that think things are related before they can show it, and they are usually had and fought with those that think two other things that are related before they can show it. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps this is itself an assumption. However I would not put it on par with the assumptions you are promoting.



Wars are fought for all kinds of reasons. I don't see the point of that to our discussion, though. Perhaps you have a more concrete example in mind, to help me see exactly what you mean by this statement?


Nor do I understand the merit for seeing assumptions on different levels, either they are assumptions, or they have varying degrees of evidence backing them up (or proving them wrong). Certainly, ideas can be more or less plausible given the evidence, but at that point we aren't dealing with assumptions at all, for we are looking at evidence.


And what assumptions am I promoting? I am not assuming things are related before showing it, if that is what you are talking about. I said people could use the logic you were using to state such a position and I shared that point to show both were equal assumptions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 10:50PM #84
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Apr 24, 2012 -- 11:56AM, Thetanager wrote:


And what assumptions am I promoting? I am not assuming things are related before showing it, if that is what you are talking about. I said people could use the logic you were using to state such a position and I shared that point to show both were equal assumptions.





Well, to start with, you are assuming that you are right, and All is wrong...

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook