Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

Good question. It shows the weaknes of this line of thinking. One gets the impression that the huge amount of doubt and assumptions seemingly based on other assumptions could somehow have paved the way for there to be a God. But as we have seen it only makes it even less likely.

Well Charles, starting with a trustworthy God we can deductively get to an external world that is not a deception. Have you yet offered such a deductive argument?

[Charles]

No you didn't, how would a world of dreams, that you take to be reality, be self refuting?

Descartes:

Every sensory experience I have ever thought I was having while awake I can also think of myself as sometimes having while asleep; and since I do not believe that what I seem to perceive in sleep comes from things located outside me, I did not see why I should be any more inclined to believe this of what I think I perceive while awake. (Med. 6, AT 7:77)

How is that self refuting?

It is self refuting once he actually goes for it. Then he has no reason to trust anything at all and thus he cannot even support his statement because he undermines anything that could support it. And if you do the same Descartes never existed so why take it serious? And neither would we exist. So it all needs to be keept in first person perspective if you want to actually go for it.

[Charles]

Well Charles, starting with a trustworthy God we can deductively get to an external world that is not a deception. Have you yet offered such a deductive argument?

If you can pick premises that do not need to be true it is conpletely worthles. You know that, seer. You are making a fool of yourself and your religion by doing that.

[seer]

It is self refuting once he actually goes for it. Then he has no reason to trust anything at all and thus he cannot even support his statement because he undermines anything that could support it. And if you do the same Descartes never existed so why take it serious? And neither would we exist. So it all needs to be keept in first person perspective if you want to actually go for it.

No Charles, that is not self refuting, and of course it is a first person perspective, there is nothing else. That is all there is, for me or you. And that is the point, whether I doubt Descartes' existence or yours, or the external world in general (which I don't) still does not get us to a positive argument. If doubt is logically possible, which it is, then there can be no certainty. So we assume reality. And again Charles, you have not offered one positive argument for your position, something that gets us past assumption. You just refuse to admit it.

[seer]

If you can pick premises that do not need to be true it is conpletely worthles. You know that, seer. You are making a fool of yourself and your religion by doing that.

But of course Charles, as a Christian, I do believe my premises are true. And they get to a universe that is not a deception and generally reliable cognitive abilities. What have you offered?

[Charles]

No Charles, that is not self refuting, and of course it is a first person perspective, there is nothing else. That is all there is, for me or you. And that is the point, whether I doubt Descartes' existence or yours, or the external world in general (which I don't) still does not get us to a positive argument. If doubt is logically possible, which it is, then there can be no certainty. So we assume reality. And again Charles, you have not offered one positive argument for your position, something that gets us past assumption. You just refuse to admit it.

I like the fact that after talking about the first person perspective you go straight on to talk about me and Descartes. You are nowhere near going for the solipsistic and self underminig consequences of the view. You seem blind to the real consequences. If you claim you are decieved or possible decieved then how can you trust even your own argument, Descartes or the belief imposed on you that some God is a guarantee of reality? You cannot even trust what goes on in your own mind based on those ideas. Even your assumtion that you refer to could be imposed on you so it is not even an assumption you are having yourself based on your own, not mine, premises. You should rather say you assume that you assume that you assume.... Because based on your ideas you do not even know if you assume.

[Charles]

But of course Charles, as a Christian, I do believe my premises are true. And they get to a universe that is not a deception and generally reliable cognitive abilities. What have you offered?

You cannot prove it so why not write it as it really is, you believe it. But you cannot even know if it really is your own belief or if the idea is imposed on you, if you are to follow your own logic. So it gets you nowhere.

I have offered my honest view and arguments time and time again. I never promised a deductive proof so what is the problem? Anyone can read and consider. I don't try to turn personal beliefs into factual statements in order to fool ...

[seer]

I like the fact that after talking about the first person perspective you go straight on to talk about me and Descartes. You are nowhere near going for the solipsistic and self underminig consequences of the view. You seem blind to the real consequences. If you claim you are decieved or possible decieved then how can you trust even your own argument, Descartes or the belief imposed on you that some God is a guarantee of reality? You cannot even trust what goes on in your own mind based on those ideas. Even your assumtion that you refer to could be imposed on you so it is not even an assumption you are having yourself based on your own, not mine, premises. You should rather say you assume that you assume that you assume.... Because based on your ideas you do not even know if you assume.

No Charles, you are twisting the argument. I do take reality as it is, but like Russell, I can not prove it. And you have not offered one positive, deductive, argument that makes the case. Like I said, you live with assumption, just like the rest of us.

[seer]

You cannot prove it so why not write it as it really is, you believe it. But you cannot even know if it really is your own belief or if the idea is imposed on you, if you are to follow your own logic. So it gets you nowhere.

Charles it is not MY logic, it is logic - and this is has demonstrated time and time again in this debate with your failure to offer a deductive case for your position.

I have offered my honest view and arguments time and time again. I never promised a deductive proof so what is the problem? Anyone can read and consider. I don't try to turn personal beliefs into factual statements in order to fool ...

But there is no certainty in all your musings. There is merely speculation, and assertion. Without deductive reasoning the door remains open, logically doubt remains an option, no matter how horrible possible consequences may be.

[Charles]

No Charles, you are twisting the argument. I do take reality as it is, but like Russell, I can not prove it. And you have not offered one positive, deductive, argument that makes the case. Like I said, you live with assumption, just like the rest of us.

I have shown the argument to be self refuting. How is that not at least important?

And we are now coming to the point where you cannot even justify the claim that you assume reality. How about the fact that you actually do not even know if you assume reality according to your own ? The assumption could be imposed on you, so you do not even know that you assume it, nor that you have offered anything of value. It could also be imposed on you and based on false premises. So neither your assumption or your arguments get you anywhere based on your own premises.

[seer]

I have shown the argument to be self refuting. How is that not at least important?

Are you delusional Charles? How is taking a dream world as reality self-refuting? It isn't. Even if all the horrible things you claim are true that would not be self-refuting, it would just mean that we are deluded about everything.

And we are now coming to the point where you cannot even justify the claim that you assume reality. How about the fact that you actually do not even know if you assume reality according to your own ? The assumption could be imposed on you, so you do not even know that you assume it, nor that you have offered anything of value. It could also be imposed on you and based on false premises. So neither your assumption or your arguments get you anywhere based on your own premises.

And everything you just said also applies to you! Since you can not build a positive case demonstrating otherwise! What positive case have you offered of value?

[Charles]

Are you delusional Charles? How is taking a dream world as reality self-refuting? It isn't. Even if all the horrible things you claim are true that would not be self-refuting, it would just mean that we are deluded about everything.



And everything you just said also applies to you! Since you can not build a positive case demonstrating otherwise! What positive case have you offered of value?

You seem to miss the point about self refutation. The view undermines everything you could claim speaks in favour of it. So would you go for a self refuting theory.

And again you initially made the statement that we needed to assume reality. Now, as I have shown, that statement cannot be withheld on your own premises. The doubt you appeal to does not even allow you to assume that. Or even to assume that you assume it. Your own claim simply cannot stand the consequences of your own view. Not convincing, seer.

[seer]

You seem to miss the point about self refutation. The view undermines everything you could claim speaks in favour of it. So would you go for a self refuting theory.

No Charles, because I do not believe we are actually deceived, but that does not change the case that it is logically possible, and the fact that you can not logically demonstrate otherwise. And when I'm dreaming Charles and nothing I am dreaming is actually happening how is that situation self-refuting?

And again you initially made the statement that we needed to assume reality. Now, as I have shown, that statement cannot be withheld on your own premises. The doubt you appeal to does not even allow you to assume that. Or even to assume that you assume it. Your own claim simply cannot stand the consequences of your own view. Not convincing, seer.

And to this point you have not build a positive case. And if I'm wrong about everything, that still would not be self-refuting - it would just mean that I am wrong about everything. And since you have not presented a logical argument it is obvious that you too assume reality.

[Charles]

No Charles, because I do not believe we are actually deceived, but that does not change the case that it is logically possible, and the fact that you can not logically demonstrate otherwise. And when I'm dreaming Charles and nothing I am dreaming is actually happening how is that situation self-refuting?



And to this point you have not build a positive case. And if I'm wrong about everything, that still would not be self-refuting - it would just mean that I am wrong about everything. And since you have not presented a logical argument it is obvious that you too assume reality.

You cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality. You can believe whatever you want. You could be decieved both in that and in your assumption. It all follows from what you said. Be honest, seer.

[seer]

You cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality. You can believe whatever you want. You could be decieved both in that and in your assumption. It all follows from what you said. Be honest, seer.

Charles, it doesn't matter. Possible consequences does not change the fact that you are no better off, if I can't assume reality neither can you. We are all in the same boat. And you have offered absolutely nothing to build a logical case that we are actually experiencing reality.