Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:56 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:51 AM)xear Wrote:  I absolutely would define god as existence so it looks like in my view you are a theist and we are on the same page.

Well, since we apparently have very different definitions of "existence" it seems that we are not even in the same book.

Quote:And you are absolutely right, the confused got a hold of the word god and for reasons of power and control turned it into craziness.

I don't recall saying that.

Sorry, I meant it to mean... you are absolutely right [calling it "god" adds a lot of unsupported assumptions like being conscious and intelligent and having a purpose.]
and I believe the confused got a hold of the word god and for reasons of power and control turned it into craziness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 08:04 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 06:22 AM)xear Wrote:  Thanks for your reply. I think that [faith] is what it comes down to. I have no proof existence continues after death. You have no proof existence discontinues.

Neither of us could possibly provide such proof. So we both have faith. I have faith in science, rationality, and logic.

You seem to have faith in irrational, nonsensical imagination such as a nonexistence, [which logically, rationally doesn't exist and can't happen].

Before you were born, you did not exist. When you die it will be the same.

If you claim there is some being that created everything, you need to provide evidence.
Absent evidence, your claim is dismissed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-09-2016, 08:05 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:41 AM)xear Wrote:  No I do not acknowledge non-living things exist. Non-living things do not exist. We talk about their existence as if they do, but they don't. If I hold up a glass we say it exists... but it only exists because it borrows existence from you and I... it has no properties of existence in itself.

You said, "The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't."... obviously so, but I am not talking about people. I am talking about existence which is invisible. If I show you a picture of a dog sleeping you do not know if it is alive or dead. Why? Because aliveness is invisible. We know aliveness can express through forms... dogs, humans etc. but since it is invisible to begin with we can't say existence cannot exist without forms which it may.

Then I do not understand what you mean by 'existence'. To me it is another word for reality and I accept that there is an objective reality because every scrap of evidence I see supports that conclusion.

The glass exists. If there was no consciousness to perceive the glass it would still exist. The picture of the dog exists whether the dog is currently alive or not. The picture of the dog is evidence that the dog did exist whether it still does or not.

I do not pretend to understand how consciousness (which is as close as I can come to guessing what you mean by existence) arises. As I've said, it appears to be the product of a functioning brain and while it is ephemeral in some ways it seems to be based on the electrical and chemical processes in a functioning brain. I see no evidence that it is anything supernatural or apart from the rest of physical reality (what I mean by existence).

Are you saying that you are a solipsist?

I don't think solipsist. Here's what I seem to believe at this moment:

I can say, I exist. The fact that I said it proves it.

I can also say a world exists. I can't prove that but it appears so.

I can say the world runs by a power beyond my control.

I can say when I fight with the world I am miserable. When I allow it to be as it is, I am happy.

That's about as far as I can go at the moment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 08:00 AM)xear Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:56 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Well, since we apparently have very different definitions of "existence" it seems that we are not even in the same book.


I don't recall saying that.

Sorry, I meant it to mean... you are absolutely right [calling it "god" adds a lot of unsupported assumptions like being conscious and intelligent and having a purpose.]
and I believe the confused got a hold of the word god and for reasons of power and control turned it into craziness.

If all of life on Earth were extinguished, Earth would still exist.
Existence does not require perception.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-09-2016, 08:25 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:57 AM)xear Wrote:  So you are saying the glass exists from its own point of view? If not then its only existence is borrowed from living entities.

The glass has no "point of view", at least as far as I can detect. It doesn't have to borrow existence though as it is part of the objective reality. It exists.

Quote:My point with the picture of a sleeping dog is that the picture does not indicate if he is alive or dead. Therefore aliveness is invisible. We can see the effects of aliveness [movement] but not aliveness.

I'm not sure there is a sold definition of "alive", especially when you get down to the level of viruses. In general it describes a set of functions that are occurring in the body. There is no "thing" to be visible, it just means that the processes are operating.

(01-09-2016 08:05 AM)xear Wrote:  I don't think solipsist. Here's what I seem to believe at this moment:

I can say, I exist. The fact that I said it proves it.

I can also say a world exists. I can't prove that but it appears so.

That much we agree on, at least in general.

Quote:I can say the world runs by a power beyond my control.

I do not know what you mean by that.

Quote:I can say when I fight with the world I am miserable. When I allow it to be as it is, I am happy.

If you mean that denying reality doesn't work well then I agree. If you ean something else then it isn't clear.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
"The glass has no "point of view", at least as far as I can detect. It doesn't have to borrow existence though as it is part of the objective reality. It exists."

There can be no moment or condition without awareness. The glass has no awareness therefore doesn't exist unless awareness appears on the scene.

Since the glass doesn't have awareness, its only existence is borrowed from something with awareness that may show up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 08:41 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:41 AM)xear Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:27 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Do you acknowledge that non-living things can cease to exist? If so, where do you draw the line and why?




The question is what evidence you have that your dog's mind still exists in any form? We have a great deal of evidence that functioning brains are required for consciousness and no examples or evidence that minds can exist without a functioning brain. What reason is there to believe that they can, let alone that they do?


Nobody is talking about existence popping out of non-existence. that is a strawman argument that only serves to cloud the issue.

When you take a pile of bricks and build a wall the wall begins to exist. The wall did not exist before it was assembled even though the bricks did. When you take a sledgehammer and knock it down the wall ceases to exist. The "wall" is the specific arrangement of bricks that exists for a specific period of time. It did not exist, then it did, then it didn't.

As a fetus grows the brain develops and the sense of "I" begins to exist in the brain. The child did not experience non-existence but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't exist until it developed. At death the brain stops working and at that point it appears that the memories, personality, and everything that made up the "I" dissipates. The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't. The fact that the individual doesn't experience the periods before and after existing is meaningless.

You talk about it as if the mind was a physical thing that suddenly appeared out of nothing and I think that's where you are wrong. If you think about the mind as an arrangement of matter and a pattern of electrical activity it is easy to see how it can come into existence and also how it can cease to exist.

No I do not acknowledge non-living things exist. Non-living things do not exist. We talk about their existence as if they do, but they don't. If I hold up a glass we say it exists... but it only exists because it borrows existence from you and I... it has no properties of existence in itself.

You said, "The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't."... obviously so, but I am not talking about people. I am talking about existence which is invisible. If I show you a picture of a dog sleeping you do not know if it is alive or dead. Why? Because aliveness is invisible. We know aliveness can express through forms... dogs, humans etc. but since it is invisible to begin with we can't say existence cannot exist without forms which it may.

This sounds like what Deepak Chopra would say. After a brain injury.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tomilay's post
01-09-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 08:34 AM)xear Wrote:  "The glass has no "point of view", at least as far as I can detect. It doesn't have to borrow existence though as it is part of the objective reality. It exists."

There can be no moment or condition without awareness. The glass has no awareness therefore doesn't exist unless awareness appears on the scene.

Since the glass doesn't have awareness, its only existence is borrowed from something with awareness that may show up.

I see no reason to accept that. You've implied that you accept an objective reality
"I can also say a world exists. I can't prove that but it appears so."
Please explain how something could exist when it was perceived but not when it wasn't if there is an objective reality. What evidence do you have?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 08:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 08:34 AM)xear Wrote:  "The glass has no "point of view", at least as far as I can detect. It doesn't have to borrow existence though as it is part of the objective reality. It exists."

There can be no moment or condition without awareness. The glass has no awareness therefore doesn't exist unless awareness appears on the scene.

Since the glass doesn't have awareness, its only existence is borrowed from something with awareness that may show up.

I see no reason to accept that. You've implied that you accept an objective reality
"I can also say a world exists. I can't prove that but it appears so."
Please explain how something could exist when it was perceived but not when it wasn't if there is an objective reality. What evidence do you have?

The world exists as an appearance to me. My awareness is not the only awareness so it exists as an appearance to others. If there were no others and no me [nothing alive] I can confidently say the world would not exist.

Do you dispute my assertion, there can be no moment or condition from which awareness is missing. Its absence means their absence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 08:53 AM)xear Wrote:  The world exists as an appearance to me. My awareness is not the only awareness so it exists as an appearance to others. If there were no others and no me [nothing alive] I can confidently say the world would not exist.

Do you dispute my assertion, there can be no moment or condition from which awareness is missing. Its absence means their absence.

I dispute that entire claim. I accept an objective reality exists and that my perception of it is reasonably accurate and that perception is unnecessary for it to exist. I compare my perceptions with those of others and they agree to a high degree of correlation. I can perceive something, then look away and ask another to describe what they perceive and it matches. I can leave a room and come back later and objects remain as I remember perceiving them before.

Object permanence

You say you are not a solipsist but you sound like you have some very similar views.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: