| Advertise Here » Browse ad-free by donating | |
|
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools |
Oct 9, 2003, 11:05 pm
| #42 (permalink) (top) |
| Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782 | 1. Their is a gray area, two options are not the only ones that exist. 2. You can never prove your shirt is blue. In fact you couldn't prove that you have a shirt. You can't prove that you're a living organism. If God created living organsims, and you can't prove that living organisms exist then it disproves the theory of God creating humans. |
|  |
|
Oct 9, 2003, 11:17 pm
| #43 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309 | 1. This will not go anywhere. I think you're wrong, but since you're dealing with purely speculative metaphysics, I can't prove it, if you don't want to believe it, you will continue to believe it. What you have not done is demonstrated it. 2. The fact I can never prove that my shirt is blue doesn't change the fact that it is or isn't blue. It sounds as if you're taking essentially solipsist argument, in another guise. Because I can never prove anything exists outside of my own consciousness (or inside it for that matter). I suggest you take a good, long read of Berkely. Keirkegaard is well worth a look, too. |
|
| |
|
Oct 9, 2003, 11:23 pm
| #44 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Leave god out of it. My shirt is blue because it falls within the pigments defined as "blue" under the spectrum of light that we have decided to measure. It is the truth because we have already widely agreed on the circumstances on which it is based (IE: that light refracts at different wavelengths based on what it is bouncing off of). I am living because my cells are in a cohesive form of action not found in inanimate objects. We understand that trees are different than rocks, and we can prove it scientifically - which means we can repeat it with an acceptable degree of stability. As such, there may be no "THE truth" but, then again, there is no authority on the subject, now is there? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Oct 9, 2003, 11:28 pm
| #46 (permalink) (top) | |
| Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89 | Quote:
read it again. | |
|
| |
|
Oct 9, 2003, 11:33 pm
| #47 (permalink) (top) | |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Quote:
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. | |
|
| |
|
Oct 9, 2003, 11:39 pm
| #50 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | You're very unexpectedly dense, Sec 8. Didn't you ever take physics? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Oct 10, 2003, 12:34 am
| #52 (permalink) (top) | |
| Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309 | Quote:
Let me put it to you another way. There are two possible theses here. 1. 'reality' is dependant on my senses. Because my senses are not reliable, then reality is unreliable. 2. 'reality' exists outside of my sensory experience. My senses then give me knowledge of reality, but do not change that reality. Because my senses are unreliable, my knowledge of reality is unreliable. Reality itself is, however, uneffected by this unreliablility. The first argument is basically solipsism (the most extreme form of idealism/rationalism); the latter pretty much everything else. The only metaphysical framework within which your statements make sense is solipsism -- in solipsism, perception and reality are the same thing. From other metaphysical positions, you have an object ('reality') that is perceived by the 'subject'. | |
|
| |
|
Oct 10, 2003, 12:38 am
| #53 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | You really ARE one dense motherfucker, Section 8! What the hell do you call an oscilloscope, then? I don't see you debating what a nanometer is. Do you know what a nanometer is? Do I have to see a nanometer to know what one is? Is there any question how long a nanometer is? Is there any debate that light comes in a range of wavelengths that can be studied and recorded and reproduced for ever and ever and ever? That's truth, man. We can reproduce it. Perfectly. Your "nothing is true" bullshit falls flat in the face of even the American principle of technocracy! You know how we know that we know blue? What are you looking at? Why, a monitor of light, reproduced with millions of little diodes that express color as defined by a set pattern of wavelengths for the expressed purpose of conveying information, entertainment, and whatever we want, and it's infinitely reproducable so long as we went ever to prove to ourselves of its existence! Do you believe in recorded music? Would there be no recorded music if you didn't? Would we have the 12 tone system, and staves and notes and musical instruments and recorders and digitizers and CDs and LPs and magnetic discs if such concepts could not be infinitely reproduced as perfectly as need be?! Am I holding a bottle of Dr Pepper, here? Why, yes I am! And wow, it has a red label, just like all those other bottles of Dr Pepper with red labels because we understand the fundamental concept of "red" and can reproduce it to a certain degree of accuracy! Who's to say that this red is not red but in fact gurble - a wondrous magnificent coloring that doesn't exist? Why, it doesn't matter because we can reproduce it over and over and over and over and over... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Oct 10, 2003, 12:49 am
| #55 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Opinion? What fucking opinion? Am I drinking Dr Pepper or not? Can you see your hand in front of your face? Does it not hurt if you were to smack yourself with it? You may see through a darkened glass, but surely you're smart enough to realize that? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Oct 10, 2003, 12:56 am
| #57 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Perspective, schmerspective. Your different idea of what glass is as compared to mine does not change the nature of glass. If it did, we'd never be able to proceed on a technological level. Hell, I wouldn't be able to walk six feet without tumbling over in a misconception of the distance, composition, and structural stability of the floor. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Oct 10, 2003, 01:06 am
| #59 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Section 8, if we listened to you we would never have built anything in the history of man, flawed visions or not. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
