[ref001]
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/16/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/16/96
[12:46] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined
#apologetics.
[12:49] Epesh (joeo@fts4p18-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[12:49] Hi, lugen.
[12:49] Reality exists; do you accept that?
[12:49] Kant was a fool??
[12:50] cose (cose@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[12:50] we perceive reality to exist... I'll
accept that
[12:50] Yeah, he was a fool. He doubted the nature
of himself, and his philosophy reflects that.
[12:50] Can we perceive something in any form
that does not exist? We exist; are we not real?
[12:50] he was an epestimologist
[12:51] we believe that, we don't know that
[12:51] If we are not, how are we having this
conversation? If we are, we are therefore real and
part of reality; therefore reality exists.
[12:52] that is an inductive sylogism, from the
observed to what is not observed....
[12:52] So we, being real, are outside reality?
[12:52] hi cose. Didn't notice you coming on.
[12:53] atman (Ted!ucpsy4@ucpsy41.psy.uc.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[12:53] "Reality" is a nebulous term...
[12:53] hi atman.
[12:53] hi, here to watch!
[12:53] Is it? It is reality is what is real.
[12:53] heya...just observing for now...:)
[12:53] blueberry (blueberry@Canth.HACKS.Arizona.EDU)
joined #apologetics.
[12:54] Epesh: what is real??
[12:54] without resorting to tautologies that
is
[12:54] (and in this corner we have Epesh, weighing
in as a real person, and in this corner we have lugen,
weighing in as a faith person, gentlemen let the discussion
begin.
[12:54] Rather: Reality is what is real, what
is existent. We exist, or else we would not be able
to debate whether we exist (denial requires a deniER),
and since we exist, we are real; therefore reality
exists.
[12:54] show me the self
[12:54] It takes a self to demand self.
[12:55] petiteo principi, begs the question...
[12:56] That's why I said it was axiomatic. If
you think it's NOT axiomatic, fine; but these things
are based on the ability to think such things. :)
[12:57] the self is an assumption, based on a
synthetic unity of perceptions, drawn together under
one consciousness, it is not observed, it is believed.
[12:57] Can one observe - i.e., create a train
of thought - without existing?
[12:57] Who observes, then?
[12:57] What does one observe?
[12:57] If it is believed, it cannot be "existant"
per se, it is something we interpret to exist, according
to our understanding of the context of the continuity
of events
[12:58] or, rather, what does a non-existent
one NOT observe?
[12:58] how can WE, being non-existent, interpret
anything?
[12:58] those metaphysical models have long been
debunked, subject/object dichotomies are insufficient
to explain what is present, and to whom they are present
[12:59] So what you're saying is that we do not
exist?
[12:59] each one lacks any epistemological foundations,
for they make an assumption from what is observed,
to what is not observed
[12:59] So what you're saying is that reality
is NOT axiomatic.
[12:59] Epesh: I'm saying that we have no knowledge
(scientia, or certain knowledge) of that fact.
[13:00] ergo, "reality" is a nebulous term
[13:00] So therefore reality - existence - does
not necessarily exist?
[13:00] Not as you perceive it, no... there is
no foundation for such a claim....
[13:01] Ah. But I didn't say what I perceived;
I simply said that existence exists, regardless of
how I perceive it.
[13:02] the perceiver and the perceived are convienient
designations, to order what is present in perception,
but by no means certain
[13:02] So what you're saying is - once again
- that existence does not necessarily exist.
[13:02] Or that we don't know whether it exists
or not.
[13:03] that's right... existence is a term that
we attach to things, but that attachment is without
foundation
[13:03] Ah. So nothing is real? There is no reality,
since reality is existence? -- or do you separate the
two?
[13:03] consciousness is not a thing that exists,
it's a process that occurs....
[13:04] Action: Epesh all of a sudden wonders how he's
using IRC, since it's part of existence, and we don't
know it exists.
[13:04] How does it occur?
[13:04] I can buy that....
[13:04] good question
[13:05] lugen: I can't. I use IRC because it
exists; I didn't make you up in my mind (I would have
made you up differently.)
[13:05] I'm not a solipsist, I'm an epestemological
nihilist
[13:05] I'm not. I believe, like I said, existence
exists; man is conscious. These are axiomatic to me.
[13:05] erm, epistemological nihilist, I don't
subscribe to a necessary doctrine of the self either
[13:06] lugen: So you're actually a corporate
entity?
[13:06] Pardon me, let me use your intestine...
thanks!
[13:06] entity? No, that too is without qualification
[13:07] or foundation
[13:07] Ah. So you don't exist at all. Why should
I speak to you?
[13:07] entity = thing... no "proof" of that
[13:07] No proof save perceptions; so you are
correct. Therefore, how can you be a Christian?
[13:08] atman (Ted!ucpsy4@ucpsy41.psy.uc.edu) left
#apologetics.
[13:08] Epesh: you're still hung up on the term
"exists"
[13:08] what is it that "really" exists?? point
it out....
[13:10] lugen: My ability to point indictaes
existence.
[13:10] How odd! You reject the Kaballah forcefully
- and are right to do so IMHO - yet you use a sefirot-like
philosophy.
[13:11] pointing is an action, existence is something
else... no necessary link between the action and the
object
[13:11] How can you take an action without the
act being on something?
[13:12] Judith (Sandra@dial164.skypoint.net) joined
#apologetics.
[13:12] lugen, we need some people kicked in
#bible
[13:12] Judith (Sandra@dial164.skypoint.net) left #apologetics.
[13:12] Take an act and wipe some lamers off
of #Bible - oops, you can't do that, #Bible is on IRC,
which may or may not exist.
[13:12] For that matter, the lamers don't exist
either.
[13:13] that's what Descartes thought... he was
wrong.... he "assumed" that it necessarily belonged to
something (Principles 1:52)
[13:13] I can send you my logs if you don't think
they were there.
[13:14] Oops, can't do that; that'd be an action
on some objects, sending objects to another object,
none of which may exist.
[13:14] Epesh: part of the misunderstanding here
is that you are thinking metaphysically, and I am not.....
[13:15] Perhaps you are right. I say, however,
that existence DOES exist. Regardless. Axiomatically.
The act of trying to disprove existence requires a
consciousness, which is part OF existence.
[13:15] you are talking about specific objects
(entities) living within a particular reality, unfortunately
that no longer washes
[13:15] Lyn (mrmml@pipe11.h1.usa.pipeline.com) joined
#apologetics.
[13:15] And when DID it "wash?"
[13:15] Lyn (mrmml@pipe11.h1.usa.pipeline.com) left
#apologetics.
[13:15] I say there's only one reality; the one
that is.
[13:16] which returns me to my first question,
what is reality
[13:16] That which exists.
[13:16] it hasn't washed since Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein,
and most notably, Heidegger
[13:16] what exists??
[13:17] erm Heidegger that is
[13:18] Let's go over our terminology before
this gets messy: An axiom or premise is a self-evident
turth basic to any further reasoning. Correct?
[13:18] Epesh: don't believe in self-evident
truths... no such animal
[13:20] Action: Epesh sighs... unless you accept the
existence of reality, you cannot reason at all. An
acknowledgement of the existence of reality is implicit
in any other claim.
[13:20] Epesh: not necessarily....
[13:21] what is "truth"??
[13:21] Even to make the counter claim ("there
is no reality") is to make a specific claim about what
the nature of reality actually is, thus admitting that
it actually has one. t also acknowledges that
perceptual and conceptual awarenesses are themselves
existents.
[13:21] (reductio ad absurdum coming up here)
[13:21] Indeed. Can you deny reality exists?
[13:22] Epesh: again, you're hung up on existence,
and reality... but if pressed, you won't have a definition
of either that is not tautological, and subject to
doubt
[13:23] Indeed. If you doubt it, you're still
making a judgement about it, and the judgement itself
requires reality to BE a judgement.
[13:23] See? We're back to the crown of the sefirot.
[13:24] And yes, I *am* hung up on reality; it
exists, and is the domain in which I exist and am effective.
[13:24] that doesn't "prove" anything, all you've
done is lowered your criteria for what constitutes
a proof, and that will not suffice in this context...
[13:24] what does it mean to exist then?
[13:25] It's self-referential; to exist is to
be.
[13:26] tautology again.... *sigh*, that means
that "exist" is a purely a priori concept, and by definition
cannot pertain to anythying a posteriori
[13:26] So what you're saying is that we may
not exist, regardless of whether we do or not.
[13:28] NoWherMan (cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[13:28] I've said nothing of the kind at any
point, this is something that you're trying to pin
me on..... I'm talking about epistemology, proof, knowledge,
and you're talking metaphysics, where a denial means
that nothing is or exists per
iod.
[13:29] we;re talking at two different levels....
[13:29] Wow first time I've seen a crowd
in #apologetics
[13:29] Ah. And if epistemology has no application
to our lives, then what worth is it?
[13:29] I believe that I exist, but that does
not mean that I know this
[13:30] Do we really exist?
[13:30] Why do you believe it?
[13:30] Or are we a mere figment of someone's
imgaination?
[13:30] Am I typing this on my computer right
now?
[13:31] Or is it just an illusion?
[13:31] ;-)
[13:31] because that is all that is available.
Knowledge is not available. All we have is belief
[13:31] We certainly have choices; we exist or
we do not. Why choose one over the other?
[13:32] Well I choose not to exist
[13:32] :PPPPPPPP
[13:32] Lalalalalalalallalalalalal!!!!!!
[13:32] which would raise the question in the
end, what does it mean to exist
[13:32] ;-)
[13:33] Which is why I say it's axiomatic.
[13:33] Mode change '+o lugen ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[13:33] NoWherMan!cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu
kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen
[13:33] NoWherMan (cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[13:33] hey what's the big idea???
[13:33] axiomatic does not make it knowledge
[13:33] go away
[13:33] Mode change '+b *!*cj4137pa@*.cc.farmingdale.edu
' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com
[13:33] NoWherMan!cj4137pa@snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu
kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen
[13:34] what I believe is that you've opted to
lower your standards of what constitutes knowledge...
I refuse to do that
[13:34] lugen: So you know nothing.
[13:35] mangar (mangar@fox.ksu.ksu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[13:35] Epesh: exactly... Socrates couldn't have
said it better :)
[13:35] cose (cose@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu) left #apologetics.
[13:36] we interpret the world the way we do,
but that does not mean that it is as we believe it
to be..... or perceive it to be....
[13:36] or interpret it to be
[13:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu:
The Home of Rational Theism
[13:38] Mode change '-o lugen ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com
[13:39] with reference to your question about
Christianity, that too is a matter of faith, not knowledge,
so it is easy to be a Christian from such a position
[13:40] So what you say is that there's no assurance
on any level.
[13:40] certainty at any level is an impossibility
[13:40] at the moment
[13:41] don't see that it will change anytime
soon
[13:41] So why believe? Just faith? After all,
you have no reason to believe in God.
[13:42] If everything is a matter of "belief",
then to believe in God, who is predicated on faith,
is to accept that truth is to be found in faith
[13:43] But why "God?" Why not "Allah?" Why not "mephibosheth?"
[13:43] Why not the lettre Q?
[13:43] Allah is the Arab word for God
[13:43] Wombat (wombat@p1s13.beaches.net) joined #apologetics.
[13:44] same God, different route
[13:44] blueberry: sorry I had to come and say
hi B)
[13:44] Wombat (wombat@p1s13.beaches.net) left #apologetics.
[13:45] same god? Really? Jesus is a prophet
of Islam, and the God of the Bible, and it's the SAME
God?
[13:45] Epesh: the Islamic traidition also stems
out of the Abrahamic line
[13:46] i'm aware of the roots of Islam. Are
you saying Islam=Christianity? A Muslim is going to
the same - perhaps nonexistent - heaven as a Christian?
[13:47] Epesh: never said that the route was
valid as a means of attaining eternal life in heaven,
just said it was the same God, the God of Abraham that
is the focus of worship
[13:48] So how can you say that? Your assertion
is based on perceptions of what may or may not be real
[13:49] You're hung up on reality again....
[13:49] So I am. I'm real; reality is my domain
of effectiveness.
[13:49] mangar (mangar@fox.ksu.ksu.edu) left #apologetics.
[13:50] all you have is a definition which is
a tautology for "reality", and what you're saying is
that this conforms to something, and I'm saying that
it cannot, by definition. It can't apply to anythin
g because you don't know what it is, and if you don't
know
[13:50] what it is, then you can't know what
it applies to, and what it does not.
[13:52] your defintion is tautological (self
reflexive truth as you put it) and is not a definition,
but merely saying that A = A, which is not telling
you anything about A, or what A is....
[13:52] lugen, I don't understand what you are
saying. Either reality is or it is not; beyond that
I cannot progress.
[13:53] Epesh: ever been on a Battleship?
[13:53] or any Navel vessal??
[13:53] vesel
[13:53] ship :)
[13:53] Yes. (A destroyer; no battleship.)
[13:54] was it black or white
[13:54] It was grey.
[13:54] that's not what I asked
[13:54] It was neither.
[13:54] apply that to your disjunct with reference
reality is or is not
[13:55] then you have my position :)
[13:55] I disagree. My standpoint is equivalent
to asking me NOt qhat colour it was, but rather "Were
you on it?"
[13:57] not, it is tantamount to asking whether
it is there or not, which can always beg the question
as to where "there" is, and what "there" is....
[13:59] Epesh (joeo@fts4p18-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left
irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p18-bfs.scri.fsu.edu]
[13:59] needless to say, my position is not necessarily
reducible to A or B disjuncts, but can be a violation
of Aristotle's law of excluded middle, simply becasue
we don't
[13:59] egads...
[13:59] oh well....
[13:59] I don't think he was getting where I
was coming from :)
[13:59] Samekh (joeo@fts4p1-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[13:59] Nick change: Samekh -> Epesh
[14:00] needless to say, my position is not necessarily
reducible to A or B disjuncts, but can be a violation
of Aristotle's law of excluded middle, simply becasue
we don't know what A or B is
[14:01] In that case you aren't violating it
because you haven't established the properties of A
or B.
[14:01] Not such that A or B are distinct.
[14:02] how would they be "distinct" then, and
how would you know this to be true?
[14:03] What you're saying is that you're violating
the excluded middle with A or B, but I say, "No; you
haven't established the identity of A or B such that
they are distinct with regard to your position, then."
[14:03] are you going to be on later on this
evening??
[14:04] not after roughly 4:30 or so.
[14:04] we'll have to pick this up tomorrow then...
I have a meeting in 45 minutes which I have to head
out for....
[14:04] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc:
Leaving
[14:07] blueberry (blueberry@Canth.HACKS.Arizona.EDU)
left irc: Leaving
[14:08] Epesh (joeo@fts4p1-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left #apologetics.
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library
[ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_16_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../
