Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pm
Well, look at it this way.
- P1: A "rational" belief, by definition, is one for which "reasons" can be adduced.
There is no such thing as a rational belief.
Then you're not rational to believe that.
You are so blinded by your own beliefs that you can not even see what is being shown to you here. But that is the nature of how beliefs affect a person. Beliefs, by themselves, cause irrational behaviors, just like you are showing right now.
I do NOT believe that. I will say it again, so that I will KNOW if you are reading what I actually write,
I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
...you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.
What does anybody actually know with the absolute "certainty" which you allege makes belief unnecessary? Give me an example, please. (One from real life, not from a closed system like mathematics or symbolic logic.)
Easy.
Thoughts.
The thoughts that arise/appear/occur (or whatever else we want to say for when thoughts come into being) within the head ARE the only thing that we can be absolutely certain of KNOWING for sure. We KNOW with certain the thoughts that are within the head or body.
If, however, those thoughts are in fact true or false, right or wrong, et cetera, et cetera is a completely other and different matter, which we can look into and delve into much more if you, or others,like.
But none of this distracts from the point that you only copied and pasted what you wanted to reply to, and thus ignoring the main point of My WHOLE quote, which was and still IS;
If you believe some thing is true that may not actual be true, then that is very irrational. If, however, you believe some thing is true that you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.
SO, either;
1. You have a belief in some thing, which may not even be true, so that is an irrational behavior.
2. You have a belief in some thing, which you KNOW for sure is true, and therefore could just provide us with the sound, valid argument for it or
show us this true fact with proof and evidence for it, of which no one could successfully dispute . Or,
3. You have a belief in some thing, which is actually an indisputable true fact, which is therefore just plain old fact, and like I said before, Then there is no need for belief at all.
You have 1. 2. or 3., which one is it?
Also, what else will be found and discovered when you are open enough to it, is that truth and fact stand up all by and for themselves, without any support from you or others. This will be seen and understood, almost immediately, when you STOP believing and start becoming OPEN.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm And, having a belief is irrational.
If you "believe" that, then by your own account, you must be "irrational."
I neither believe nor disbelieve it. It is a view that I observed, which could be totally wrong, partly wrong and right, or right. I just express what I observe, and then remain open, and wait for others to express their views and what they observe. If My view is shown to be wrong in any way whatsoever, then I await that patiently as I want to be informed of this. I WANT to keep learning more and anew. I WANT to be informed of what views I express are wrong, and most importantly WHY they are wrong. I much prefer this to happen as soon as practical, instead of long drawn out meaningless discussions.
If all you can say in reply is what you have said here, then this is rather very foolish, especially as you would surely KNOW by now, if you had read what I actually write, that I would NOT believe that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmSo far, we have three completely undebatable premises, I think. Any reasonable person would believe all three. Let's continue:
Have you noticed the way you try to argue? You have already come to a conclusion and if any person does not agree with you, then, to you, they are an unreasonable person.
The truth is, from My perspective,
P1 is untrue, for reasons given.
You don't agree with the
definition of an Atheist? Then you have no idea what the word means.
1. What a word means to YOU does NOT mean that is what the word actually
MEANS. In fact what a word means to ONE dictionary does NOT mean that that is what the word actually
means. Further to this, what a word means to the MAJORITY does NOT mean that that is what the word actually
means. Tell Me what the
definition of an 'atheist'
means to you, then I will tell you if I agree with it or not.
By the way what a word actually MEANS is only KNOWN by one way. I have already explained that way previously. Let us see who has read what I write and knows the way that I say. Again, I may be wrong, but until shown otherwise, this is what I observe. If my views are wrong, which they can very well easily be, and i can not obviously see this, then i need to be shown this.
2. My whole message was NOT about that I do not agree with YOUR definition of atheist, which as I just alluded to I do not even know what it is, but rather that you label people who disagree with your beliefs of "God" and other things, as being "unreasonable: people. And, obviously no person can reason with an un-reason-abled person. That is, your own distorted thinking is fooling you into believing that you are 100% absolutely correct here. You BELIEVE that you are correct and any one seeing and having a view otherwise is an unreasonable person.
3. WHY I disagree with YOUR P1, as I explained, IS for the actual reasons that I have ALREADY given. NOT because of your definition of atheist, of which I am not even aware of yet.
4. Your ASSUMPTION and obvious WRONG conclusion is blindingly obvious, and shown to all here, in the way you wrote your first "question" and also in your OWN subsequent answer to your own "question". Just putting a question mark at the end of a statement does NOT hide the fact what your underlying thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs are.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
P2's example needs further investigation
The example was merely to help any unknowledgeable observers to understand Leibniz's point at a rudimentary level. If you don't like the example, you can simply ignore it. It's not worth debating.
THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE, in this forum, and in Life also, by the way.
You clearly show that you do NOT read the actual words I write.
This is NOT about not liking the example at all. I SAID THAT,
P2's example needs further investigation. There is to much relativity in it. For example is sperm small and weak? Sperm created human beings and human beings it might be argued are too large and substantive. Also, in your example you might have been thinking of some thing else, like the Universe for example, but is there any proof that it was at all created, by some thing else? AND, immanuel can does what immanuel can always does and that is NOT look at what is actually written. immanuel can also does NOT like discussing any thing that might take immanuel can of that one-sided position and track that immanuel can is on.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmI assume, as a rational person, you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason. And if you do, you've got nothing to complain about.
I was NOT complaining. I was trying to get you to look at how absurd your example is and get you to discuss your example, but you are NOT open to doing either of these things. Instead you will try and twist this around to detract away from what I am pointing out and that that you do NOT want to even look at and consider.
So, just to show others how blinded you actually are, IS SPERM SMALL AND WEAK?
Do you think or believe that the Universe was created by some thing else?
Answer these questions and then we will KNOW that you are NOT blind to the real issues and thus are not trying to just side-step and distract the main issue here.
immanuel can's beliefs are great evidence of just how much blinding and distorting beliefs actually are, and the more immanuel can proceeds here the way they have been the more evidence and proof immanuel can is providing for all of us.
By the way I have no view on principle of sufficient reason because I have never read any thing about it. I do not recall even hearing that principle before, but just the way those words are written sound fair enough, and, the way you explained it it seems to make sense and be sensible. BUT your own example of supposedly "sufficient reasons" does NOT support the principle of sufficient reason, itself. If you are trying to prove God exists, then you will NEED a lot more than what you have provided. By the way 'a lot more' does NOT mean more reasoning but more reasonable reasoning.
Obviously, depending on what your definition of 'small and weak' is first, then that will influence greatly if things that are small and weak can actually create much greater and bigger things or not.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmP3 is just the exact opposite of theism. The belief in either atheism and theism are both irrational and illogical. Unless of course proven otherwise.
Your error is to thing that "belief" entails "irrational."
Okay that is fair enough. That is your view, but what evidence do you have to support this view?
What does "belief" actually entail then if it does not entail "irrational", as you say.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmActually, every scientific experiment and "law" we have is a matter of belief.
What do you actually mean by EVERY scientific experiment and "law" is a matter of belief?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmBut that's not even contested among epistemologists.
How many people labeled epistemologists do you actually know?
And, how do you know every thing that is contested or not among ALL of these people?
And, how does what is not contested among some people got to do with what is a matter of belief, and then how does that relate back to My error in thinking that belief entails irrational?
I just could NOT follow this "logic" you are using here.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
That is just a part of the problem: Theism, as far as I am aware, can not fulfill P4 either.
It can, but it would not matter a jot if it couldn't.
Why would it not matter a "jot", whatever a 'jot' is, if theism could not fulfill P4, but to you it matters a great deal that atheism can not fulfill P4?
Could it have some thing to do with the fact that you call yourself a theist and NOT an atheist?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmFor Atheism, if it is a rational belief, must stand on its own two legs as such, and not merely say, "Well, some other systems are also wrong, therefore Atheism must be right." For it could just as easily be the case that Atheism is wrong too, even if some of them are.
The EXACT same thing could be said for theism.
WHY MUST atheism stand on its own when theism does NOT HAVE TO, for you?
If there are sufficient reasons for saying it is rationally answerable that God exists, then let us all see those sufficient reasons.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmYou need to understand the Principle of Sufficient Reasons. It doesn't mean "reasons you like," or "reasons you regard as true."
EXACTLY but you are the one who appears to follow that kind of logic.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmIt means, a cause adequate to its purported effect." And undoubtedly, IF (notice the hypothetical) a God were to exist, He would be entirely sufficient to the effect I have attributed to Him. That's manifest.
What effect have YOU attributed to God?
What do YOU mean by 'manifest'?
What sufficient evidence do you have that God is in any way a "him"?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmSo the Principle of Sufficient Reason is satisfied by that explanation.
The only thing that explanation, in and of itself, satisfies, to Me, is that you have some conclusion that you believe is absolutely true and which you are trying to support. You have some clarifying and explaining to do first, before you even begin to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason to Me.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmTo continue to take issue, you would maybe say, "Well, I don't believe God exists."
Your assumption here is so totally off track and wrong that it is laughable.
What I would say is the actual questions that I just asked you for clarification.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm But two problems follow: 1) you claim your beliefs are irrational anyway, and 2) your belief is not required to satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason. All that's required is that potentially (that is, unless you can conclusively prove God does not exist) God is an adequate explanation for the effect I've attributed to Him.
The ONLY problems that follow from your declaration are the two problems that I posed, as questions, which are awaiting your response, by the way.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
We're talking about Atheism, not my beliefs.
My whole point IS theism has the EXACT same
belief mentality.
Theists BELIEVE God exists, and, some atheists believe God does NOT exist.
Now, your stance is atheists have to provide sufficient reasons WHY God does NOT exist, and, I say you ALSO have to provide sufficient reasons WHY God does exist. If you want to believe some thing and state it as a factual truth, then where is the evidence or logical reasoning.
WHAT is the actual evidence for either side of this, one of the most drawn out and ridiculous, debates in human history.
The actual one and only TRUE answer is within ALL OF YOU. Only if YOU were OPEN to hearing and seeing IT.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmAnd we've already seen that it cannot get a 'win' by simply denying my beliefs. It has to prove its own claim with sufficient rational evidence, or be found irrational, no matter what is the case with my beliefs.
Good point. Now let us see if you can actually prove, with sufficient rational evidence, your own claim.
What is your claim?
And, what is your sufficient rational evidence for it?