Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of DiogenesOfSinope

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DiogenesOfSinope

1
Hi everyone,

I've created this thread in order to discuss the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnamsXvc9Pg

Stefan Molyneux is a self-professed philosopher and the most popular podcaster of philosophy on the planet. The significance of this is that bad philosophy and arguments from him are projected to such a wide audience, as are the arguments of his callers (he receives calls from listeners into his show).

This podcast was filmed as he talked to two atheists on atheism.

I'm about 30mins in but already the callers argue that "truth can only be derived from necessity". As an epistemological premise to their argument. I don't know what it is but this premise sounds a but odd to me... anyone agree? Disagree?

Also, discuss the rest of the video here if you wish.

2
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« on: February 27, 2017, 04:07:03 am »
How do we know anything exists?

The premise does draw on assumptions. I.e. Normal rational ones, like, things exist! And from what we know from our senses and understanding, they are caused. It draws on the universal human experience and ability.

If we apply the theory, it could be an illusion, then it should apply to everything. So let's be consistent!

Does she apply this same skepticism to everything else? I doubt it. But if not, why not?

She does not. As I stated, she subscribed to the solipsist school when she suspected something awry in my/her own thinking.

3
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« on: February 26, 2017, 02:55:28 am »
She's just going nuclear because she senses that there is something fishy about this premise but she can't pinpoint what. I agree with her on this, but she's taking the skepticism much further than she needs to or has any reason to.

She actually admitted to this. She admitted that due to the very nature of the debate topic, she has subscribed to some form of solipsism. That is to say, a subscription to a philosophy of thought that believes in only one's consciousness and not the objective world.

4
Choose Your Own Topic / DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« on: February 26, 2017, 12:38:56 am »
So I've been debating on the cosmological arguments for the existence of God with an opponent/friend of mine.

We've recently hit a roadblock that neither of us can move away from. I have presented her with the typical 'Premise 1' of the cosmological argument (specifically, Leibniz's):

Quote
1. Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either through a cause or by its own necessity

Whilst debating 'Reality' (despite this entire debate actually being a debate on cosmology), my debate opponent does not accept my logical lines of argument or even citations are enough to accurately prove the nature of reality as we know it. She is claiming that she may or may not be hallucinating (be in a simulation or unknown other experience), therefore,  there is a chance that she is not experiencing reality in its true form. She postulates that reality outside of her consciousness is probably ultimately unknowable, and that therefore, Leibniz's first premise is unknowable since existence itself is unknowable.

Another example is me pointing out to her that an object in her room exists, to which she replied "But how do I know it does?" - it's from this debate tactic she employs that I find myself struggling to move on in the debate, befuddled by her logic.

Any others here experienced this or have advice on how we can both agree to the first premise of the cosmological argument?

5
Community Debates Forum / DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« on: February 26, 2017, 12:36:14 am »
So I've been debating on the cosmological arguments for the existence of God with an opponent/friend of mine.

We've recently hit a roadblock that neither of us can move away from. I have presented her with the typical 'Premise 1' of the cosmological argument (specifically, Leibniz's):

Quote
1. Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either through a cause or by its own necessity

Whilst debating 'Reality' (despite this entire debate actually being a debate on cosmology), my debate opponent does not accept my logical lines of argument or even citations are enough to accurately prove the nature of reality as we know it. She is claiming that she may or may not be hallucinating (be in a simulation or unknown other experience), therefore,  there is a chance that she is not experiencing reality in its true form. She postulates that reality outside of her consciousness is probably ultimately unknowable, and that therefore, Leibniz's first premise is unknowable since existence itself is unknowable.

Another example is me pointing out to her that an object in her room exists, to which she replied "But how do I know it does?" - it's from this debate tactic she employs that I find myself struggling to move on in the debate, befuddled by her logic.

Any others here experienced this or have advice on how we can both agree to the first premise of the cosmological argument?

Pages : [1]