When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
crabgrass
for the record, I disagree with Damon and the idea that believing in superstitions is necessarily a bad thing.
Damon's idea that you can "know" something is absurd. All we really can ever "know" is that we know nothing at all.
The idea of a man flying was a superstition once...and now it's not. Damon's buying into "knowing" that something that is unknown is somehow "wrong" is even more close-minded than the religious beliefs he thinks he is disproving.
The fact is, it's unknown...it can't be wrong any more than it can't be right. His argument against belief in an unknown reveals not any right or wrong but just another belief.
Damon's buying into "knowing" that something that is unknown is somehow "wrong" is even more close-minded than the religious beliefs he thinks he is disproving.
All I had said was that I had not yet seen an argument from anyone who believed in theism that was valid and sound.
having the knowledge that one knows nothing is in itself knowing something
and that precisely why you know it, because you know you can't know it. Once you can't "know" anything...it confirms that you know that you know nothing.
I told you that's not the case at all. I am profoundly secure in what I believe
perhaps you are unfamiliar with I refer to when I say "skepticism"
Skepticism is the epistomelogical theory that no one can truly no anything, or as you are so found of saying,"All I know is that I know nothing at all"
Your version is easily defeated because the very propostion itself is contradictory. If one "knows" that one "cannot know anything at all", then one knows something. And something is more than nothing
you don't even know if there is a difference between belief and knowledge.
I believe in infinity and that says that if you can think it (and even if you can't) it has to be true in the infinite, because the infinite is all places and things. It can't not exist because you can't subtract from the infinite.
you don't even know if there is a difference between belief and knowledge
there is, and a huge one at that
I believe in infinity and that says that if you can think it (and even if you can't) it has to be true in the infinite, because the infinite is all places and things. It can't not exist because you can't subtract from the infinite.
interesting take.
but if something is true, then one must know it. afterall, if it can occur in the infinite, it has occured, and is therefore knowledge.
nope...it's simply a belief...just like everything else.
No, a belief has the potential to be false. In the infinite, as you propose, everything is encompassed. This is inclusive of anything absolute. If something is absolute in its truth, which is possible in your infinite, it removes all doubt, and is knowledge, not belief.
for the record, I disagree with Damon and the idea that believing in superstitions is necessarily a bad thing.
Damon's idea that you can "know" something is absurd. All we really can ever "know" is that we know nothing at all.
The idea of a man flying was a superstition once...and now it's not. Damon's buying into "knowing" that something that is unknown is somehow "wrong" is even more close-minded than the religious beliefs he thinks he is disproving.
The fact is, it's unknown...it can't be wrong any more than it can't be right. His argument against belief in an unknown reveals not any right or wrong but just another belief.
Christians are a notoriously hostile bunch. As well as Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
All we really can ever "know" is that we know nothing at all.
this statement is false. If one cannot know anything, how can one know that one knows anything? Skepticism is a flawed epistomelogical theory.
sorry...you said....
"you" is pretty damn specific.
and I don't see Damon advocating threatening you with a lake of fire for all eternity either
Damon's buying into "knowing" that something that is unknown is somehow "wrong" is even more close-minded than the religious beliefs he thinks he is disproving.
All I had said was that I had not yet seen an argument from anyone who believed in theism that was valid and sound.
one doesn't know anything. That's what it said. One knows that they know nothing at all. Not that they know something.
That you point out that even this can't be known only proves the point.
that's neither here nor there in relation to what I said.
what part of the word "belief" are you having trouble with?
'cause it ain't gonna work with your logic no matter how hard you push on it.
Skepticism is the theory that no one knows anything, which is certainly what you are proposing here.
One knows that they know nothing at all
if one knows that, then one knows something.
this in direct contradiction to what you are proposing
so, you are determining right or wrong by a theory?
that's a belief, just like the others....like it or not.
when I say belief I mean justified belief, for future references
so, you are determining right or wrong by a theory?
No, not at all. Your line of reasoning is just about verbatim from the standard defintion of skepticism.
no...they don't know something...that's what it says.
they know nothing.
they know they know nothing.
knowing that you know nothing isn't knowing something, it's a state of knowing nothing.
which only goes to show just how true it really is.
they know they know nothing.
having the knowledge that one knows nothing is in itself knowing something
then why do you keep having to refer to epistomelogical theory>
No it isn't. I'm not the least skepical in my belief of it.
and that precisely why you know it, because you know you can't know it. Once you can't "know" anything...it confirms that you know that you know nothing.
I'm not using an epistomelogical theory.
You are, the theory being skepticism
but like I said, even the confirmation of knowing that you know nothing, is having knowledge of something.
This is why skepticism is a rebuked thoery among philosophers
did it ever occur to you that the last part of the sentence "All I know is that I know nothing at all" alters the very definition of the first part?
tell me, what does the definition of the first "know" have to become?
then quit using it to "disprove" other people's arguments.
I told you that's not the case at all. I am profoundly secure in what I believe.
I'm not talking about skepticism, as much as you want me to be.
Saying "Äll I know", is in and of itself signaling that one has knowledge, even if it is only thing.
In this case, that one thing is "I know nothing at all"
Well, if you know that, then you know something, and therefore, cannot "know nothing at all"
no...It goes on to say that I know nothing at all.
and therefore cannot know anything...even that I know that I know nothing.
that's why it's a belief.
and that's why your thinking you know instead of mearly believe is to laugh at.
I told you that's not the case at all. I am profoundly secure in what I believe
perhaps you are unfamiliar with I refer to when I say "skepticism"
Skepticism is the epistomelogical theory that no one can truly no anything, or as you are so found of saying,"All I know is that I know nothing at all"
Your version is easily defeated because the very propostion itself is contradictory. If one "knows" that one "cannot know anything at all", then one knows something. And something is more than nothing
if you were to say "I believe that we truly know nothing at all" that would be acceptable
know
which was a point I would have gotten to sooner or later.
you don't KNOWthat contradictions aren't the truth
You have these limited little rules that allow you to pretend that you think you know something...you don't
it's a point you have spent the last several posts trying to disprove.
where'd Rick go?
I challenge him and it's hostile...I wonder if my challenging the other side is hostile to him as well
No, I was spending the last several posts disproving the theory of skepticism.
you don't KNOW that contradictions aren't the truth
your post had N ( I don't know anything) and, through implication ~N.
only one of those can be true, and therefore, there is a contradiction there.
too bad that wasn't what I was talking about.
you believe these rules so much you think they are the truth.
they can both be true just as easily as the rule that says the can't can be false.
You inability to see this is not really any different than Religion saying there is One Way and all the others are false.
too bad that wasn't what I was talking about.
but it was, it was the whole premise your argument was based on
you believe these rules so much you think they are the truth.
logic is as constant as mathematics
they can both be true just as easily as the rule that says the can't can be false.
no, if N is true, then its negation (~N) must be false. If you can't accept this, that is fine, but that's what it is.
I'm leaving work now, we can pick up tomorrow if you'd like.
You inability to see this is not really any different than Religion saying there is One Way and all the others are false.
There is right, there is wrong. There is valid, and there is invalid.
Your argument is invalid, and therefore has no logical strength
you don't even know if there is a difference between belief and knowledge.
I believe in infinity and that says that if you can think it (and even if you can't) it has to be true in the infinite, because the infinite is all places and things. It can't not exist because you can't subtract from the infinite.
sorry...no it wasn't.
I understand that making it so makes it easier for you to argue it, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
so, you BELIEVEin mathmatics?
they are just another form of Religion....with order as their God.
you don't even know if there is a difference between belief and knowledge
there is, and a huge one at that
I believe in infinity and that says that if you can think it (and even if you can't) it has to be true in the infinite, because the infinite is all places and things. It can't not exist because you can't subtract from the infinite.
interesting take.
but if something is true, then one must know it. afterall, if it can occur in the infinite, it has occured, and is therefore knowledge.
See you tomorrow
you don't knowanything
nope...it's simply a belief...just like everything else.
I already told you that I know that I don't know it.
Damon, I admire your efforts, but you can't teach logic to the illogical.
Apparently so.
nope...it's simply a belief...just like everything else.
No, a belief has the potential to be false. In the infinite, as you propose, everything is encompassed. This is inclusive of anything absolute. If something is absolute in its truth, which is possible in your infinite, it removes all doubt, and is knowledge, not belief.
you don't know anything
and how do you know this?
I'm waiting for someone to say, "There are no absolutes."
In the infinite, as Crabs believes, there must be, or else it's finite
that's right Damon, you can't teach these Godheads that it isn't logical to believe in a God.
Some people wish to remain blissfully ignorant Crabs
Christians are a notoriously hostile bunch. As well as Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
People are a notoriously hostile bunch.
Nice that you try to blame it on religion though.
True, but I don't act hostile because some thinks their god>my god, or their way of life>my way of life
True, but I don't act hostile because some thinks their god>my god, or their way of life>my way of life
You're acting pretty hostile if you ask me.
I won't contribute to it.
Later.
I'm not acting hostile, I'm presenting a topic for debate.
If the general purpose of religion is to better life on earth, then why is so much violence done in its name?
no he's not.
it was a convienent cop-out crabs
At least THX is truthful, unlike you two.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8