Take Back Our Country

[Sparko]

When someone makes a claim, it is more than fair to ask a series of questions, even if they are designed to show them that their position is not sustainable. It's actually known as the Socratic method - well known in teaching and philosophy circles. It's not "leading by the nose." It's actually escorting the person to the logical conclusion of their claim.

Your own words: "I was leading him to the inevitable conclusion of his own statements. "

[seer]

You know, I really had no idea just how disingenuous you actually are. This discussion has opened my eyes.

Right back at ya...

[carpedm9587]

Your own words: "I was leading him to the inevitable conclusion of his own statements. "

Yes - I was. It's called the "Socratic Method." You might want to look it up. And, as a parent, I've used it a lot.

Child: These toys are MINE. I don't have to share them!
Parent: True. So are you saying "sharing is a bad thing?"
Child: Yes!
Parent: And whoever owns the toy should never have to share it?
Child: Yes!
Parent: How much do you enjoy playing with Billy's Xbox?
Child: I like it a lot!
Parent: But sharing is bad, right?
Child: Yes!
Parent: So Billy probably shouldn't share his Xbox with you?
Child: Umm... well...geee....
Parent: You know, it might not feel good to share your things, but it sure feels good when someone else shares their's, doesn't it?
Child: Yes
Parent: So if you want to enjoy having things shared with you, maybe you should consider sharing what you have?
Child: I guess so (petulantly)

Questions do indeed lead. They may even "lead by the nose." That is not a problem in exploring a concept. I'm not sure why you think it is.

[seer]

Yes - I was. It's called the "Socratic Method." You might want to look it up. And, as a parent, I've used it a lot.

Child: These toys are MINE. I don't have to share them!
Parent: True. So are you saying "sharing is a bad thing?"
Child: Yes!
Parent: And whoever owns the toy should never have to share it?
Child: Yes!
Parent: How much do you enjoy playing with Billy's Xbox?
Child: I like it a lot!
Parent: But sharing is bad, right?
Child: Yes!
Parent: So Billy probably shouldn't share his Xbox with you?
Child: Umm... well...geee....
Parent: You know, it might not feel good to share your things, but it sure feels good when someone else shares their's, doesn't it?
Child: Yes
Parent: So if you want to enjoy having things shared with you, maybe you should consider sharing what you have?
Child: I guess so (petulantly)

Questions do indeed lead. They may even "lead by the nose." That is not a problem in exploring a concept. I'm not sure why you think it is.

Oh please, so why are you an atheist?

[carpedm9587]

Oh please, so why are you an atheist?

I'll be happy to answer your questions....


...when you answer mine..



(but since it makes you feel so "dirty" - I'm not going to hold my breath...)

[Sparko]

Yes - I was.

Then why did you get upset when I said you were? My point was that Seer knew you were not interested in him sharing why he believed, you were just interested in making your point and he didn't want to play your game. So rather than you saying, OK I see, let's move on, you seemed to be accusing him of being unable or unwilling to do his Christian duty and share his faith. That was the dishonest part.

[Sparko]

I'll be happy to answer your questions....


...when you answer mine..



(but since it makes you feel so "dirty" - I'm not going to hold my breath...)

So you don't want to play seer's game? Shocking.

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you get upset when I said you were? My point was that Seer knew you were not interested in him sharing why he believed, you were just interested in making your point and he didn't want to play your game. So rather than you saying, OK I see, let's move on, you seemed to be accusing him of being unable or unwilling to do his Christian duty and share his faith. That was the dishonest part.

Sparko - you guys continue to read emotional motivation into my posts where there is none. Maybe you guys get emotional about these discussions (I don't know), but this is a conversation on a web forum - it's not exactly a matter of personal angst for me. You guys aren't related to me, I'll probably never see any of you, we're certainly not friends, so there is no basis for an emotional response.

As for "playing your game," that point of view seems remarkable one sided. Apparently I can be blindly led down the path of questioning, and I should be happy about it, but if I lead someone else down the path of questioning, I am somehow "playing a game?" You are not at all consistent. Seer was welcome to disconnect at any point (which he did). That he felt a need to simultaneously disparage me says more about him than me. I am not harmed by his comments. I just find his claims of moral superiority to be somewhat odd given his behavior.

And I actually said nothing about his "Christian Duty." If you think so, please show me the post where I said this or implied it. I did note that he was clearly unwilling (or possibly unable) to respond to my questions. I was actually also clear that I believe it is because he saw the wall hurtling towards him. He made a claim he cannot sustain. He would have to be an idiot not to see the direction the questioning was going.

Nothing about that is "dishonest." If you think so...well... you're entitled to your views...

Despite the many times I have been labeled as such here, I have never once been dishonest in any post I have made. I know that about myself. It's enough. Whether or not you folks believe it is pretty much irrelevant.

[carpedm9587]

So you don't want to play seer's game? Shocking.

I don't want to engage in a unidirectional discussion. If questions are OK in one direction, they are OK in the other. If not...it's a waste of time.

This is actually a pattern with Seer. He likes to ask questions. As soon as they are reversed, he fairly quickly finds a reason/way to stop answering and go back to asking. I'm just not biting this time.

[Sparko]

As for "playing your game," that point of view seems remarkable one sided. Apparently I can be blindly led down the path of questioning, and I should be happy about it, but if I lead someone else down the path of questioning, I am somehow "playing a game?" You are not at all consistent. Seer was welcome to disconnect at any point (which he did). That he felt a need to simultaneously disparage me says more about him than me. I am not harmed by his comments. I just find his claims of moral superiority to be somewhat odd given his behavior.

Here:

You feel dirty for explaining to someone how you know that your beliefs are true?

That is very odd...

I didn't "preach" anything, Seer. I asked questions. Questions you appear to be unable and/or unwilling to answer, apparently.

[seer]

I'll be happy to answer your questions....


...when you answer mine..



(but since it makes you feel so "dirty" - I'm not going to hold my breath...)

OK, let's start with God:

1. An intelligible, precise universe, that is life permitting makes more sense to me as a product of a rational mind, than the non-rational forces of nature.

2. Life (all life) being a product of life (God) makes more sense to me, than life being a product of non-living forces.

3. Consciousness (ours) being a product of consciousness (God's) makes more sense to me than consciousness being the product of non-conscious forces.

4. A rational mind (ours) makes more sense to me being the product of a rational mind (God's) than the non-rational forces of nature.

5. A Just God means we live in a just universe rather than an unjust universe (fulfilling our innate desire for justice, see Kant).

6. A moral God means there are universal moral truths (fulfilling our innate desire for objective moral truths).

7. A God offers man an objective, overriding purpose and worth that is not dependent on personal whims or relative considerations.

[carpedm9587]

OK, let's start with God:

1. An intelligible, precise universe, that is life permitting makes more sense to me as a product of a rational mind, than the non-rational forces of nature.

2. Life (all life) being a product of life (God) makes more sense to me, than life being a product of non-living forces.

3. Consciousness (ours) being a product of consciousness (God's) makes more sense to me than consciousness being the product of non-conscious forces.

4. A rational mind (ours) makes more sense to me being the product of a rational mind (God's) than the non-rational forces of nature.

5. A Just God means we live in a just universe rather than an unjust universe (fulfilling our innate desire for justice, see Kant).

6. A moral God means there are universal moral truths (fulfilling our innate desire for objective moral truths).

7. A God offers man an objective, overriding purpose and worth that is not dependent on personal whims or relative considerations.

A lovely list...perhaps worth exploring someday. I note "to me" a lot, which sounds suspiciously relative. That being said, none of this list answers my questions. To remind you:

Seer: Christ came back from the grave to confirm His teachings and the God of the Bible.
Michel: How do you know this is true?

Seer: Verbally if He so chooses.
Michel: So does god appear, do you hear audible voices, or are they voices in your head?

The discussion was in the context of my noting that all propositions are relative and your (somewhat implied) assertion that my means of determining "truth" was relative and yours was better because it was "absolute." I don't consider that position sustainable. So I am following your own statements to their logical conclusion. I think you will eventually have no choice but to acknowledge that the truth of any proposition is determined by assessing whether or not it conforms to what is real. That is Epistemology 101. It is the very essence of language.

[seer]

A lovely list...perhaps worth exploring someday. I note "to me" a lot, which sounds suspiciously relative. That being said, none of this list answers my questions. To remind you:

Seer: Christ came back from the grave to confirm His teachings and the God of the Bible.
Michel: How do you know this is true?

Seer: Verbally if He so chooses.
Michel: So does god appear, do you hear audible voices, or are they voices in your head?

The discussion was in the context of my noting that all propositions are relative and your (somewhat implied) assertion that my means of determining "truth" was relative and yours was better because it was "absolute." I don't consider that position sustainable. So I am following your own statements to their logical conclusion. I think you will eventually have no choice but to acknowledge that the truth of any proposition is determined by assessing whether or not it conforms to what is real. That is Epistemology 101. It is the very essence of language.

My whole point Carp was that only an all knowing God could know with certainty, and that would be the superior position. And BTW you could not even defend this: the truth of any proposition is determined by assessing whether or not it conforms to what is real

That is begging the question because that statement itself is a proposition.

[carpedm9587]

My whole point Carp was that only an all knowing God could know with certainty, and that would be the superior position.

Last I checked, you were not an all knowing god. So I am not sure how this is relevant.

And BTW you could not even defend this: the truth of any proposition is determined by assessing whether or not it conforms to what is real

That is begging the question because that statement itself is a proposition.

Wow - you really DO like to talk about the insubstantiality of the walls, and then leave by way of the door!

Last I checked, Seer, you were human, like me. You use symbolic language, like me. The language represents the reality around us. So it is essentially a given that the truth of any proposition, using symbolic language, will depend on its alignment with what is real. That is how we determine what is "true."

But if you want to descend into the vacuous hole of "no one can know anything and we can never say anything of meaning because it's all circular" help yourself. In the process, you take down all of your own positions, because nothing you say can be known to be true either, because they are all propositions. Every word you type...every word you say...every thought you have collapses in the same fit of absolute skepticism.

So yes, human language is circular. When you read the definitions of words, you find other words, and eventually you always go in a big circle. You can either throw up your hands and say "no one can ever understand anything about anything," or you can accept a more practical approach. My guess is that you live a more practical approach, and you actually think that a proposition is false if it is not aligned with reality, and true if it does. when your son (or daughter) says, "of course I didn't take the car to <insert place not permitted to go here>," you determine if their statement is true or false by seeing if they actually DID take <insert place not permitted to go here>. You don't say, "well, that's relative, so it's useless."

This hairsplitting is for the philosophical discussions, and it ultimately takes down all human conversation in all contexts for all people.

P.S. I also note that you STILL did not answer the questions.

[seer]

Last I checked, you were not an all knowing god. So I am not sure how this is relevant.

Except God can communicate truths to man.

Wow - you really DO like to talk about the insubstantiality of the walls, and then leave by way of the door!

Last I checked, Seer, you were human, like me. You use symbolic language, like me. The language represents the reality around us. So it is essentially a given that the truth of any proposition, using symbolic language, will depend on its alignment with what is real. That is how we determine what is "true."

But if you want to descend into the vacuous hole of "no one can know anything and we can never say anything of meaning because it's all circular" help yourself. In the process, you take down all of your own positions, because nothing you say can be known to be true either, because they are all propositions. Every word you type...every word you say...every thought you have collapses in the same fit of absolute skepticism.

So yes, human language is circular. When you read the definitions of words, you find other words, and eventually you always go in a big circle. You can either throw up your hands and say "no one can ever understand anything about anything," or you can accept a more practical approach. My guess is that you live a more practical approach, and you actually think that a proposition is false if it is not aligned with reality, and true if it does. when your son (or daughter) says, "of course I didn't take the car to <insert place not permitted to go here>," you determine if their statement is true or false by seeing if they actually DID take <insert place not permitted to go here>. You don't say, "well, that's relative, so it's useless."

This hairsplitting is for the philosophical discussions, and it ultimately takes down all human conversation in all contexts for all people

.

Like said, we can only have certainty with God, and your proposition is circular.

P.S. I also note that you STILL did not answer the questions.

That is why I said we have a web of interlocking beliefs, and began with why I believe God is a more rational explanation than no god for what we find in the universe, from there we can get to your specifics. You just can't pull specifics out of the worldview and expect them to make sense.