Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please quote a post of mine where I supposedly said something different then what @Polymath257 is saying here.

You didn't. Already answered.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I used different words and said the exact same thing.
It concerns a belief of something that is demonstrably incorrect.

That is what being wrong means: to be incorrect about a certain proposition / claim / what-have-you.

I never said anything else.

Your insistence on strawmanning notwithstanding, off course.

Already answered.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's what being wrong means: to hold a belief that is incorrect.

Exactly like what @Polymath257 is saying.


Give it a rest already and admit your mistake.

Yes, I admit.

Now let us play:

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: B is D

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"wrong" is not a property or attribute of a person, like skin color is.

When we say that a person is wrong, it refers to a specific belief that that person holds.

This is why you can follow it up with the question "the person is wrong about what exactly?".

The person is wrong ABOUT something. Being wrong refers to incorrect beliefs that are being held.

Already answered.

 

[Stevicus]

It's interesting that a thread can start out with questions about the origins of the universe, and then turn into an argument about what the meaning of "wrong" is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's interesting that a thread can start out with questions about the origins of the universe, and then turn into an argument about what the meaning of "wrong" is.

Well, that was me and I learned something from that and I will even admit, what I was wrong.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

They are no like you. You are running as you as program on the computer. They are not running as themselves on the computers. They are simulated to you, they are not simulated as themselves.

Further look here for solipsism:
Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

As for irrational, what has that got to do with existence? Just because a Boltzmann Brain universe or Last Thursdayism doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't tell you if it exists or not.

Ahh...I see. You think that existence is not a defined term. I think it is.

The point is that 'existence' is *defined* in terms of experiences and models of those experiences. If I have a consistent, testable model that involves other people, then those people *exist*.

Remember, I am not saying it is true or any of that. I am doing philosophy to show you a kind of "paradox". I.e. the limit of knowledge of what the objective reality really is. It is not a logical paradox. It is a paradox of knowledge.

And I agree it is a paradox. And I also think it is he type of paradox best discussed over drinks. It has no real value except as a paradox.

I am not answering, what objective reality really is. I am a skeptic and I do, what some skeptics do. We doubt, what knowledge is.

You seem to think that 'objective reality' is defined without use of experience or models. I strongly disagree.

We are playing epistemology and you know, what that is, because you have really studied that, right?

Yes, of course. And the problem is, at least in part, an outmoded concept of 'knowledge' based on a faulty metaphysics.

Here is the question: how do you define the term 'exists'? or is it an undefined term in your system? Are we just supposed to know what it means?

And since knowledge is justified true belief, and truth is defined in terms of what exists, we can't even address the concept of knowledge without first addressing the concept of existence.

So, when you say that I could be a Boltzmann brain, I find that to be completely irrelevant to the question of existence. It is simply a meaningless proposition unless there is a way to test it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ahh...I see. You think that existence is not a defined term. I think it is.

The point is that 'existence' is *defined* in terms of experiences and models of those experiences. If I have a consistent, testable model that involves other people, then those people *exist*.

...

No, I am not playing that game any more. You explain precisely what - "then those people *exist* mean? Exist independently of you and if you were no more, they would still exist as them in themselves or what?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

No, I am not playing that game any more. You explain precisely what - "then those people *exist* mean? Exist independently of you and if you were no more, they would still exist as them in themselves or what?

Define the term 'exists'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Define the term 'exists'.

The word "exists" is a nominal idea, that only works as the idea of existence. It is no different than the word "god".

Now you can check my claim or I will explain it for you. But you should be able to check it yourself. Just ask yourself, what is the property of existence?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

The word "exists" is a nominal idea, that only works as the idea of existence. It is no different than the word "god".

I disagree.

Now you can check my claim or I will explain it for you. But you should be able to check it yourself. Just ask yourself, what is the property of existence?

Why do you assume it is a property? For that matter, what is he definition of 'property'?

Let me ask this: does it make sense to say something exists that doesn't interact with anything else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree.

Yeah, but that is not evidence.

Why do you assume it is a property? For that matter, what is the definition of 'property'?

Let us make an example: You and I are looking a dog. E.g. it has the property of having a color and don't nitpick that white is not color. It has the property of having a form. There is lot of properties which can be observed and with instruments there is a lot of properties which can be measured.
Now look at existence and do the same. It is out there, right? If it is out there, tell me it's properties.

Let me ask this: does it make sense to say something exists that doesn't interact with anything else?

Taking for granted what is in question.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, but that is not evidence.



Let us make an example: You and I are looking a dog. E.g. it has the property of having a color and don't nitpick that white is not color. It has the property of having a form. There is lot of properties which can be observed and with instruments there is a lot of properties which can be measured.
Now look at existence and do the same. It is out there, right? If it is out there, tell me it's properties.

Easy. Something exists if it can be observed. If there is no way, even in theory, to observe it, it does not exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Easy. Something exists if it can be observed. If there is no way, even in theory, to observe it, it does not exist.

That is a load of nonsense.
And no, I don't accept your magical thinking. You use as a word on something observed and then using words you say it exists based on your words. I don't want your words. I want your observation of existence.
This is absurd. Here is the definition of God. God is the creator of the universe. You wouldn't accept that. You would want observation to back that up. I want the same for existence. I don't want your words, I want observation!!!

If you can't give me observational data for existence, then there is no existence. It is just words in your head, just like God.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

That is a load of nonsense.
And no, I don't accept your magical thinking. You use as a word on something observed and then using words you say it exists based on your words. I don't want your words. I want your observation of existence.

Then define the term existence. In the way *I* use the word, making an observation and detecting it *proves* the existence.

This is absurd. Here is the definition of God. God is the creator of the universe. You wouldn't accept that. You would want observation to back that up. I want the same for existence. I don't want your words, I want observation!!!

Yes, I would want observations to prove the existence of something. You seem to be thinking 'existence' is a 'thing'. That isn't my claim.

If you can't give me observational data for existence, then there is no existence. It is just words in your head, just like God.

A thing exists if it can be observed. I'm not claiming 'existence' is a thing. You are claiming 'God' is a thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then define the term existence. In the way *I* use the word, making an observation and detecting it *proves* the existence.



Yes, I would want observations to prove the existence of something. You seem to be thinking 'existence' is a 'thing'. That isn't my claim.



A thing exists if it can be observed. I'm not claiming 'existence' is a thing. You are claiming 'God' is a thing.

What is existence?
Here is the problem with existence. You are not saying anything about the thing. You haven't explained what existence is.
What is it that you have proved? So I want you to explain what existence is? You are just playing with words.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
We will start here:
... Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume's view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object. ...

Regards
Mikkel

Edit:
What does the words "the thing exists" signify about the thing? What does "the thing exists" say about the thing?
"The dog is black" say something about the dog. "The thing exists" says what about the thing?

Take 3
That sentence is not a thing: "In the way *I* use the word, making an observation and detecting it *proves* the existence." Further it can't be observed itself as for its meaning, because it is about how you think and that is not observation, so it doesn't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: B is D

Regards
Mikkel

No.

Try again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: B is D

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I admit.

Now let us play:

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: B is D

There's nothing there to play with as it is an incorrect representation of what I actually said again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a load of nonsense.

How is that nonsense?

And no, I don't accept your magical thinking. You use as a word on something observed and then using words you say it exists based on your words. I don't want your words. I want your observation of existence.

What is being observed has to be communicated. Communication happens through words.

This is absurd

I agree, but probably for different reasons.

Here is the definition of God. God is the creator of the universe

That's not a definition. That's a claim. A claim about an undefined entity (=god).
You're not defining what god *is*. Instead, you are claiming what god supposedly did.

You haven't even touched what this god *is*.

You wouldn't accept that

Because it's not a definition.

You would want observation to back that up

Yes, claims require suppoting evidence.

I want the same for existence

Existence of what?
Existence as a concept isn't the equivalent of an entity like "god", so this is a false equivalence.

I don't want your words, I want observation!!!

How is he to communicate those observations, if words can't be used?

If you can't give me observational data for existence, then there is no existence

Cool. So you basicly just agreed to the definition that you disagreed to in the beginning of your post...
Being that exisant things require observation in order to be recognised as existant.

Funny that....