Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

Edit--Double Post. PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-19-2005 05:56 AM

quote:

---

1) What defines ultimate reality? If there were a reality greater than human comprehension, are you saying that such a reality need not exist since we cannot define it?

---

No. I said nothing about any ultimate reality. All I said was that "pure logic is only governed by the logic of logic" whereas the real world is a lot messier. Merely because we can conceive of something does not mean we should expect it to really exist.Reality is not limited to human comprehension, and nothing I have said should be taken to suggest it should be. But that said, there is no reason that any existing thing should be unpercievable to us, if we try correctly.Note: definitions are inherently more dangerous than observations. An observation only says "this is"; a definition says "this is its totality". The ONLY time in which a definition need be discussed is when establishing a shared vocabulary. At all other times, discussions of "definitions" are prone to the danger that they substitute the definition for the observation.

quote:

---

by this reasoning {$1 + $1 = $2} is not the same as {1 euro + 1 euro = 2 euros} because you have to consider the meaning of "$" and "euro" first

---

LOL, yes thats obviously true. Whether or not they are negotiable currency changes with locale.Of course, what you are trying to present is an appeal to the pure numbers...

quote:

---

1+1=2 doesn't have any material reality. nor does 6x9=42. do you dispute the validity of math too? you keep introducing things to the argument that don't bear on it: this is a(nother) classic strawman example.

---

Well, which mathematical system are you appealing to? Euclidian? Non-Euclidian? There are multiple coherent mathematical systems, any of which could be taken as valid. We use one.Thats in fact a prime example of why you have to be careful which of several logically coherent systems you adopt - merely becuase they are logically coherent does not mean they describe reality.

quote:

---

and (surprise) again you miss the point: either the argument structure is logical (and therefore the logical conclusion is the same regardless of the subject that fits the conditions of the argument), or the argument structure is not logical (in which case it should be easy to point out the logical fallacy).

---

LOL - I did not miss the point at all. All your construction here shows is that a nonsense, but logical, argument can be constructed. So what? That does not in any sense imply that reality should echo your favoured conclusion. Merely because something is logical does not mean the thing exists.

quote:

---

I also note you still have yet to post your actual quotes of my posts demonstrating that your claims were valid representations of my position -- as you were challenged to do, and as you agreed (not that you haven't broken agreements before ... ).

---

Well why don't you go back to the original thread, where I already did so? Repeating myself would only be a courtesy to you.

quote:

---

ote that to substantiate his claim all contracycle needs to do is quote one post where he can show I actually said what he claims I said. If his claim were true it truly would be easy to prove. If his claim is a misrepresentation then he cannot substantiate it, and then if he does not withdraw his claim, he intends to continue to misrepresent my positions.

---

You did so specifically in message 87 of that thread. You repeatedly asserted that sexual selection must be adopted in the ABSENCE of any conceivable functional benefit to hairlessness. And yet, substantive benefits to hairlessness HAVE been conceived, articulated, and researched.This means that in fact you were in violation of:

quote:

---

2 Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

---

As you continually restated your initial assumptions and cavalierly dismissed any theory other than that which you personally favour. It remains the case you have never given a cogent rebuttal of the benefits that many people appear to see in hairlessness, as articulated in the running ape model. The fact that you disagree does not make your argument true; you did not debate in good faith.

quote:

---

take the issue there and see if you can actually answer it this time

---

So this is the secondm, thread you are bailing on, eh?Your defence of the logic of agnosticism has been dismantled.

quote:

---

as I have stated several times on THIS thread the issue of your failure
to substantiate YOUR position is not the topic here.

---

There is no such failure on my part.
In the thread of clothes, my only position was that "there is another theory for hairlessness", which I certainly substantiated.In your thread on the alleged logic of agnosticism, I cogently defended the view that not all logically consistent arguments are necessarily true merely on that basis.I have not failed to substantiate my position in any way.