Ted's PalTalk Debate Challenge

Interesting Ian said:
Just finishing my coffee now. Be on in about 3 mins
Click to expand...

Trying to PM you (I see you on) but you're only accepting PMs from people on your list. Add me, Marian333. Or change that so I can invite you to the room.

And password is kippers

Room is private, so there will be no intrusions. (Though anyone from here wanting an invite can just PM me)
 
Interesting Ian said:
That was a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. We got you to admit philosophy is powerless to generate definitive answers. I'd call that remarkable progress!
 
Interesting Ian said:
That was a waste of time.

Marian, I'll talk to you sometime when TLN is not there if you like.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was a waste of time at all, and I'm glad you came.
 
TLN said:
I wouldn't say that. We got you to admit philosophy is powerless to generate definitive answers. I'd call that remarkable progress!
Click to expand...

Least of all ill-thought-out philosophy. You can't go by science alone; you have to think about what it means and which competing theories best fit the data. And if you're going to philosophise, you may as well do it well.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Progress in what sense? Who had their mind altered by the exchange? Certainly I did not.
Click to expand...

So, can we assume you'll stop appealing to philosophy as "proof" of anything and that you in fact can't refute anything with its use?

Or will you continue to claim victory at every turn?
 
Paltalk is ok, but the problem is I normally get ignored when I go in a room. Except for rooms set up on here of course. People don't leave me alone then :rolleyes: Must mean that people like to speak to me all the time once they've got to know me.
 
TLN said:
So, can we assume you'll stop appealing to philosophy as "proof" of anything and that you in fact can't refute anything with its use?

Or will you continue to claim victory at every turn?
Click to expand...

If my arguments are not addressed, or if there is some attempt to address my arguments but they fail to refute them, or indeed make them any less reasonable, then my position will not have changed at all.

Since coming on here 2.5 years ago my position has not changed on anything. What does that tell you? ;)
 
Interesting Ian said:
If my arguments are not addressed, or if there is some attempt to address my arguments but they fail to refute them, or indeed make them any less reasonable, then my position will not have changed at all.

Since coming on here 2.5 years ago my position has not changed on anything. What does that tell you? ;)
Click to expand...

You're confused.

You admitted that philosophy can't definitively prove or disprove anything. Why then do you continue to use it for just that purpose? It makes no sense. (Note I didn't say your arguments make no sense, just your methodology.)

Ian, by your own admission, philosophy is powerless to answer questions. I expect you'll refrain in continuing to use it in an attempt to do so.
 
Interesting Ian said:
If my arguments are not addressed, or if there is some attempt to address my arguments but they fail to refute them, or indeed make them any less reasonable, then my position will not have changed at all.

Since coming on here 2.5 years ago my position has not changed on anything. What does that tell you? ;)
Click to expand...

Since you have failed utterly to prove anything, it tells me that you are unwilling to admit that you can't prove anything.

..........waaaaaaaaaaaaait......
 
TLN said:
You're confused.

You admitted that philosophy can't definitively prove or disprove anything. Why then do you continue to use it for just that purpose? It makes no sense. (Note I didn't say your arguments make no sense, just your methodology.)

Ian, by your own admission, philosophy is powerless to answer questions. I expect you'll refrain in continuing to use it in an attempt to do so.
Click to expand...

What are we supposed to do? Just take things on faith? On authority? No, we all need to think. That implicitly involves philosophy. As I said, some positions are vastly more rational to adopt than others. We can only know the more rational positions by philosphical thinking. In other words by careful rigorous arguments.
 
Interesting Ian said:
What are we supposed to do? Just take things on faith? On authority? No, we all need to think. That implicitly involves philosophy. As I said, some positions are vastly more rational to adopt than others. We can only know the more rational positions by philosphical thinking. In other words by careful rigorous arguments.
Click to expand...

None of which proves anything, which you admitted. "Rational" is subjective.

Which is all you have to offer, Ian: pure subjectivity. Then you declare victory. Truly baffling...
 
TLN said:
None of which proves anything, which you admitted. "Rational" is subjective.

Which is all you have to offer, Ian: pure subjectivity. Then you declare victory. Truly baffling...
Click to expand...

I haven't come on here to continue the argument.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I haven't come on here to continue the argument.
Click to expand...

No, you retreated once it became clear philosophy was worthless towards answering questions.

Next week, you'll declare you've "refuted materialism" or "proven the self isn't of the brain" or some other such nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom