Why YOU should believe...

Post Reply New Topic

What do you mean by 'inside' or 'outside' of one's consciousness? How do you tell the boundary of the mind dependent and independent world? How is the existence of 'mind dependent world' testable?

The likes of general relativity or quantum mechanics are falsifiable and does not have any 'mind' factor, and is so far consistent. So 'the reality' at least appears to work in a mind independent way.

On the other hand, the 'god' utterance is nothing but nonsense gibberish.

You said that if I "can take the world on faith, then theists can take God on faith." You seemingly assume that everyone is required to "take the world on faith." I attempted to show that this assumption is invalid. However even if it were valid, you cannot compare the two: taking the world on faith doesn't change one's actions, but the same can't be said for taking God on faith.

I heard it makes you sadder when the effects go off.

I do not assume that everyone is required to take the existence of a mind-independent reality on faith. I argued that Ruveyn (and anyone who shares his epistemology) is required to take it on faith. Not everyone believes that only statements which can be scientifically tested are epistemically justified. For instance, there are people who admit statements which are justified a priori.

I haven't argued for or against the existence of a mind-independent reality, only that Ruveyn's scientism doesn't justify his belief in one. Whether his behavior or perceptions would change if one did not exist is unrelated to the issue of justification. You and blausamstag have introduced a red herring. I wonder if you just don't grasp the issue or you're trolling.

Just your strawman. You don't even define what is mind independent or dependent reality. How can you accuse of Ruvyen of believing either without justification?

The first post I made at this forum was a response to you. You had set up a strawman by recasting the conclusion of a philosophical argument as a conjunction. You did this to make the argument appear weaker. You couldn't cite a source for your rendition of the argument because none exists. It was brazen intellectual dishonesty.

The members can see for themselves. Here's a link to the exchange:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3384204 ... t=#3384204

I'm not entering an argument with you because it is a waste of time. In addition to arguing in bad faith, your posts are breathtakingly stupid. Your comment in the "God exists" thread made no sense ("the non-existence of the magic man is possible" - WTF?) and the comment you left in the Keynesianism thread likewise contributed nothing of value. If I ignore most of your posts, it's because they're worthless.

I was just parodying your stupid arguments.

Well, that's why Epicurean philosophy is so badly misunderstood. Epicureans would have you give up smoking, jog in the morning, and take a fish oil after your evening meal. Their concept of happiness was based on tranquility and detachment. An Epicurean would want to end his life sitting in a rocking chair on a porch overlooking a quiet alley with sea gulls cawwing somewhere in the distance, and a good book, perhaps about popular science or an interesting geographical feature, would be close at hand. It is nothing like "live free, for tomorrow we may die." It is more like, "live well, for this life may be all we have."

Also, Epicurean thinkers are not necessarily atheistical. In fact, I would even say that it would have been unusual for a Hellenistic Epicurean to be non-religious, BUT they would see it as impious and ungrateful to demand that the gods share their immortality with Man or to supervise and police a society that Man, not the gods, has made a mess of. The Epicurean might say, "why do we ask the gods for special favors or to act like our parents? Their world is beautiful and worthwhile, and we have the privilege of being their guests in it. Isn't that enough?" Arguably, Epicurean thinkers had a more pious outlook, in some ways, than the Stoics.

And you might defend the Stoics by pointing out that they were civic-minded and did good deeds and so on. However, the Epicurean would point out that it is good men armed with good intentions who do the most to disturb the general peace, and everyone would be happier if most people didn't believe it was right to force their fellow man to change or to live their lives according to what a stranger believes to be "virtuous." A Stoic might have supported Prohibition. The Epicurean, on the other hand, would have called it a fool's errand before it became popular.

As for the intellectual dishonesty of Telekon, from the very same thread he quoted:

1) He accused me of equating 'The universe has a cause' and 'God caused the universe'. The fact is in deism, 'god' usually simply refers to the cause / creator of the universe and therefore the two are equal in that sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

2) I was clearly attacking the claim that the universe has a cause. I admitted that calling the cause god is not needed but is irrelevant. He did not address my main point.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3384204 ... t=#3391912

3) In my exchange with 91, Telekon quote mined my reply to 91, saying the KCA alone does not prove the necessity of god's existence. He conveniently ignores 91's definition in the thread that god has no beginning only because it is supposed to exist by necessity.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3388788 ... t=#3388788
(see also 91's post 7 posts above)

The members can see for themselves.

Yeah, I said I was gonna leave you alone but....

Functionally Epicureans and Stoics are pretty similar. It's theory in which they really differ.

Epicureans believe in a sort of enlightened pleasure seeking as the goal of life. Epicureans would encourage fitness because being healthy is essential for enjoying life. By contrast, epicureans would condemn excessive drinking because, while it might be pleasurable in the short term, it hurts health in the long term.
For the Epicureans good comes from seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

As you stated, for the Stoics good comes from living a virtuous (i.e. prudent, just, temperate, courageous) life according to nature. The Stoics might encourage fitness as a way to promote discipline and accustom one's self to discomfort--to harden one's self for the day when life might require physical endurance. In this way the Stoic could greatly diminish the pain and suffering that is an UNAVOIDABLE part of life.

The Stoic sage knows:
1. Everything is impermanent and subject to change.
2. There is little in the world over which we have even the most marginal control.
3. Seeking pleasure brings pain; avoiding pain brings pain.
4. Tranquility is achieved by living free of desire for fame or fortune, and free from aversion from pain, suffering, and the requirements of living in society.


As far as Gods go, Stoics are pantheists. God is nature. Nature is God. Atheists Stoics (many Romans were) would say Nature (actually the reason or scientific laws that govern nature) has no consciousness of it's own. Deist Stoics would view Nature in much the same way, but allow that Nature has a consciousness of it's own. Stoics do not believe that the self survives death. At best our divine spark of reason simply rejoins the divine fire that shapes the universe. At worst our divine spark simply snuffs it, and we're done.

As far as civic commitment goes, Stoics are committed to the improvement of our society. That usually manifests in CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. For example, I teach people to read, and I'm involved in homeless charities too.

As far as that bit about Stoics supporting prohibition is concerned... That's total nonsense. First, Stoics believe that acting without virtue carries its own punishment--i.e. a heroin addiction is its own punishment. Further, Stoics know you cannot coerce people into virtue. The best you can do is try to educate them.

As Marcus Aurelius writes:


George Long's translation is a bit bibley, but you get the idea.

It should also be noted that Marcus was the most powerful man on earth in his time, and he could kill you with a word.

Epicureans also practiced a sort of "social contract" form of morality, I understand. It was really quite practical. Also, they did place a large emphasis on tranquility and detachment. It was not "pleasure-seeking" really. It was more "peace-seeking."

"Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get, and
What is terrible is easy to endure."

"Luxurious food and drinks, in no way protect you from harm. Wealth beyond what is natural, is no more use than an overflowing container. Real value is not generated by theaters, and baths, perfumes or ointments, but by philosophy."

"Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul."

"Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not."

"He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing."

"Self-sufficiency is the greatest of all wealth."

As far as ethics,

"The just man is most free from disturbance, while the unjust is full of the utmost disturbance."

They wouldn't be as avid as a Stoic about being do-gooders, but an Epicurean is by definition an extremely easy person to live with and more fun to be around. Furthermore, I doubt that an Epicurean would bother creating a pantheistic god. Why create a new god when the old ones are such a charming, harmless tradition?

They can. The Kalam does not require God to be necessarily existing that is a different argument. All anyone will take from your thread is that you do not know the difference between the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Argument from contingency. Telekon pointed this out to you and then you claimed that you were discussing a different argument? I only defended necessarily existing objects in the thread because I am interested in them, Telekon is correct, the Kalam has nothing to do with them. Also, anyone who looks at the argument on page one of that thread will not even see the Kalam, they will see your presentation of it, which is logically invalid, it is not argued the way you presented it.

You are correct, members can see for themselves.

He set up a strawman by glossing over part of an argument that he wasn't discussing?? The point of creating a strawman is to make the argument weaker where you are ATTACKING IT. Binary clearly didn't do that. He stated two premises correctly, and then he attacked those two premises. That's not dishonest. At worst, that's just lazy, and frankly, I think most people will gloss over things in that kind of a casual manner if it isn't relevant to their points.

Telekon, you pointing this out actually reveals YOUR intellectual failings, more than it does for binary. I honestly don't count this against him at all.


Wow, and I think your posts are breathtakingly stupid. I mean, the comment you left in the Keynesian thread was basically just a regurgitation of libertarian ideology. And this bit about intellectual dishonesty because he misstated something irrelevant to his argument??? Utterly f*****g absurd. I can't even understand something this "breathtakingly stupid", as you're getting at him for an issue that is irrelevant to his point. I mean, even if it was intentional, it would still be fair as negative rhetoric if he just didn't think highly of the 4th premise, or thought the argument got boring after the first two premises were put down. This is just nonsense.

Funny, I ignore most of your posts because I get the impression that you're someone who's actual knowledge well underpasses your certitude and bravado. This post sorta strengthens said impression.

Oh look. It's the most surprising thing in the universe, AG is misrepresenting someone. Telekon pointed out that firstly, what binary put forward was not the Kalam, that was lazy. He also pointed out that no one defends the Kalam using the propositions he was addressing, binary ignored the affirmative argument. Instead he putting forward a point that no one defends. He was supposing that time exists before the universe, his issue is not with the Kalam or it's defenders but with causation and physics. I even asked him if that was what he is saying and he affirmed it and you said that it worked (surprise, there never was a bad atheistic argument that didn't get an AG endorsement). No Christian thinker of any value would defend the argument as he puts it forward. That friend is a straw man and your comment is a misrepresentation of the event.

Look at the point he made here (remember he claimed this one was the stronger claim)
A) There exists a time t when the entry under question (the universe) doesn't exist, and the universe only exists some time later;

I was more unhappy as a Christian.