• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it?

Bri said:
Yes! That's what I've been telling you all along. There is no way to know what unfalsifiable beliefs are right and which are wrong. In many cases they contradict one another so we know that they can't all be right.

So, just realize that your belief is only opinion and respect the beliefs of others.

Could it be that you're finally getting that?

-Bri
Click to expand...

Please give me some examples of unfalsifiable beliefs that contradict each other.
 
JetLeg said:
*scratching head*
Click to expand...

At one point you said that a belief held by the majority of people in the world must be true. The majority of people in the world don't believe that your god exists (they tend to believe in consequential gods). Therefore, by your logic, it must be true that your god doesn't exist. Right?

-Bri
 
Bri said:
At one point you said that a belief held by the majority of people in the world must be true. The majority of people in the world don't believe that your god exists (they tend to believe in consequential gods). Therefore, by your logic, it must be true that your god doesn't exist. Right?

-Bri
Click to expand...

:mad:
 
Have I just argued your god out of existence? I'll miss the little guy, inconsequential as he may be.

-Bri
 
Bri,

I am really annoyed by your arguments. But I don't have anything smart to say, so I'll shut up for a while.
 
Oh, well I am truly sorry to hear that. It was honestly not my intent to annoy you, but hopefully in the process you've also seen the logical fallacies of your argument.

Which, in my book, would make it annoying in a good way!

-Bri
 
Nobody said you have to let go of your beliefs. Just realize that your beliefs are only beliefs, not facts. Other (possibly contradictory) beliefs are equally valid, so respect the beliefs of others as you would like them to respect yours.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
So, just realize that your belief is only opinion and respect the beliefs of others. [ETA: Note that respecting the beliefs of others doesn't necessarily mean believing the beliefs of others.]
Click to expand...


Bri - I don't hold all opinions in equal regard. Some are better than others.

Your religious beliefs, for example, I characterize as 'woo' - I find them to be rank superstition.

I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion - I've read many threads in which you attempt philosophy, and don't wish to encourage more.

I just wish to point out that your beliefs and 'meta-beliefs' are not agreed upon by all, and that your arguments are not persuasive.
 
Complexity said:
I just wish to point out that your beliefs and 'meta-beliefs' are not agreed upon by all, and that your arguments are not persuasive.
Click to expand...

Call me silly, but I'm pretty sure she just did a fine job of proving that to JetLeg.



So.....I think she knows that.
 
Argh, too late to edit my post, sorry...I meant, Bri just proved to Jetleg that his beliefs are not agreed upon by all, and his blah, blah, etc.

Sorry for not being more clear. It was supposed to be a defense, not an indictment. :blush:
 
JetLeg said:
Well, if so, it does follow from your assumptions.

If only things that have spatial boundaries exist, then the immaterial doesn't exist because it does not have spatial boundaries.

But we need to think if the assumption is correct. It seems you beg the question, by assuming that only things that have spatial boundaries exist. It is exactly what needs to be proven in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't want to spend much time or waste much space on this because I think Bri's points are well taken, but I am not arguing that only things with spatial boundaries exist. What I said was that our experience with thought is that it seems to require spatial boundaries. We can only argue by analogy to an immaterial 'being', and our analogies break down completely when discussing such an 'entity' (and the further one gets from the specifics of an analogy the less reliable that analogy becomes). We may try to project characteristics onto such a being and say that we can conceive of it, but I don't think we really do for any meaning definition of the word 'conceive'.

To summarise. I did not argue that only things with spatial boundaries exist. I argued against your proposal of immaterial boundaryless consciousness. I don't think that concept is coherent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom