Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 08:15 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 08:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  But that could just be an elaborate ploy to make you *think* France is a real place. Consider

I guess it can become a real place after you visit it. Blink

In that case Paris is a real city that is purported to be in France but according to agnostic Shane, while I know Paris is a real place because I've been there....I suppose the rest of the country might indeed be fake...except for the train route between there and Germany.

Would that make any place I've never visited a black hole -- a foggy area on the map until I visit it? Unsure

In that case Australia doesn't exist, because I've never been there. Tongue
That would lead to a debate over "if consciousness supercedes perspective reality."
Would you like to have a go at it?

Why? I think you're not worth the effort.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 08:29 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 08:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Logic is based on validity.
Validity is based on logic.
Logic is based on validity. Validity is based on logic.
To the power of infinity
Rational is based on circular logic, which makes it irational in the end.

What the hell are you on about? Do you understand what the term "validity" actually means, or is this another case of you not knowing the definitions of the terms you are attempting to use?

No. On second thought, don't answer that. I honestly don't care, because whether or not you think you understand what validity is, you are wrong.

For those who have never heard the term before, "valid" is a descriptor applied to any given logical argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Note that this does not mean that the premises or conclusion must actually be true; an argument may be valid but still incorrect, as such:

- All humans are robots.
- Unbeliever is human.
- Therefore, Unbeliever is a robot.

If each of the above premises were true, the conclusion would necessarily also be true. The argument is valid, but has failed to prove its conclusion because at least one premise is untrue. For those curious, an argument which is both valid and has demonstrably true premises - and therefore actually proves its conclusion - is referred to as "sound".

Validity is not "based on" logic. Validity is the central concept of logic. The only thing that it is "based on" is semantics, as it comes down to whether or not the premises and conclusion are defined in such a way that the latter must be true if the former are.

But then, if you recognized the importance of nailing down actual definitions for terms before attempting to use them, you wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

It would appear you missed this part:

From google:
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

How is it not circular?
How can logic be described without using a word exact in meaning with validity?
How can validity be described without using a word exact in meaning with logic?
Do it for me and end my circular argument please. I'm actually hoping you will, I honestly don't like my own argument in this case but I can't counter argue it myself. Hopefully you are much better at this than I am.
If this were a form of mental mastubation it would appear I used the wrong sized dildo up my proverbial asshole & I can't get it out myself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
The life of Agnostic Shane, as Truman Burbank.... played by Jim Carrey.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 08:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It would appear you missed this part

No, I'm quite aware that you based your entire knowledge of what the words "logic" and "validity" mean off of a ten-second Google search rather than, say, actually doing some research.

The only reason that I find this even in the slightest bit more pathetic than your usual complete lack of understanding is that even Wikipedia gets this right. But you, in the meantime, are so completely determined to avoid doing any actual research that you just Google the word "validity" and take the literal first result, without stopping for even half a second to consider that the term might have a more technical definition when it comes to logic.

If you aren't even going to pretend to put some effort into your posts, why should we bother with you?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 08:50 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 08:56 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 08:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 08:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It would appear you missed this part

No, I'm quite aware that you based your entire knowledge of what the words "logic" and "validity" mean off of a ten-second Google search rather than, say, actually doing some research.

The only reason that I find this even in the slightest bit more pathetic than your usual complete lack of understanding is that even Wikipedia gets this right. But you, in the meantime, are so completely determined to avoid doing any actual research that you just Google the word "validity" and take the literal first result, without stopping for even half a second to consider that the term might have a more technical definition when it comes to logic.

If you aren't even going to pretend to put some effort into your posts, why should we bother with you?
You do realize you are arguing against a question right?
You assume I am making a point somewhere, but it's still a question based on an equation that was placed (no where is the claim made that the equation "is" true.)
A question is supposed to be based on a lack of understand or it wouldn't be a question now would it?
You have issues with questions & questioners having a lack of understanding? Why is that even an issue?
I don't make assertions my friend. I list a possibility and ask for objections in the form of a question. Skeptics don't assert, we doubt.

Back on topic:
You just made the argument that it's not a form of circular logic because "it's more technical". No explanation given by what you mean by that.
So now I am forced to assume that anything that has a technical meaning is not circular logic, until you could give me an explanation to your claim.

Can you try to explain yourself a bit rather than posting a comment that has no face value without some form of explanation? Or is this too much to ask?

If you think directing someone to a location where they can possibly find an explanation is considered an explanation then maybe you should look at what the meaning of the word I explanation is:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 08:55 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Is belief in the currently unseen irrational?

No. I'm certain my younger brother is drinking a NOS, right now, though I can't see him doing it, because I know he's a NOS fiend!

Is belief in the never been seen irrational?

Yes!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 09:03 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 08:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You do realize you are arguing against a question right?

This is not an argument. An argument requires both parties involved to have a point.

This is you being corrected on your failure to understand the definitions of the terms you are attempting to use. If you did understand them, you would not be asking such stupid and incoherent questions.

(23-03-2016 08:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Back on topic:
You just made the argument that it's not a form of circular logic because "it's more technical". No explanation given by what you mean by that.

Except for all the explaining, you mean.

I'm still not really seeing a reason that anyone here should bother with you.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-03-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-03-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 08:55 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Is belief in the currently unseen irrational?

No. I'm certain my younger brother is drinking a NOS, right now, though I can't see him doing it, because I know he's a NOS fiend!

Is belief in the never been seen irrational?

Yes!
I think your answer is the best answer anyone can give to this question I never asked, but wouldn't that require Omiscience on an objective level?

How can you possible arrive at the conclusion that something has "never been seen" unless you assumed this based on the limited amount of information presented to you in your life time?

Which of the following statements are you trying to say:
Never been seen by anyone/anything you know of
Or
Never been seen by anyone/anything inclusive and exclusive of what you know of

If the latter is what you are attempting to say then can you tell me how you came to that conclusion. If you haven't checked the observations of everything in the world yourself how are you able to make a claim on behalf of everything in the world. Such a claim although easily said would be totally dishonest right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 09:20 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 09:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 09:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 08:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You do realize you are arguing against a question right?

This is not an argument. An argument requires both parties involved to have a point.

This is you being corrected on your failure to understand the definitions of the terms you are attempting to use. If you did understand them, you would not be asking such stupid and incoherent questions.

(23-03-2016 08:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Back on topic:
You just made the argument that it's not a form of circular logic because "it's more technical". No explanation given by what you mean by that.

Except for all the explaining, you mean.

I'm still not really seeing a reason that anyone here should bother with you.
Corrected on my failure to understand?
Are you correcting a question?
The only questions I have ever seen corrected are the ones where the intentions or purpose of the question are known.

Let's examine what is happening here:

Someone asks a question.
You do not yet know the intent of the question.
You do not ask what is the intent of the question.
You assume you know the intent of the question without ever asking or reading what is the intent of the question.
And then...
You correct the question?

What are you a the TTA thought police?

Let me guess:
You "believe" you know my intent right?
Is this a belief in the unseen?
Is it rational?

Let me guess:
You "analyzed" me from my past posts right?
Based on your analysis you can very easily understand the intents of all my questions.
How can you be this certain?

You really are the TTA thought police aren't you?
Cmon, no need to hide it Mr. Officer.

P.S. You are not doing a very good job Sir. You are arresting innocent thought offenders.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: