"The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 am
Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:55 am
And your reason for still talking about this, when you were told hundreds of times for years that no one here is talking about standalone truths?
You are totally ignorant!

Philosophical realists and theists [>90% of people on Earth] claim their truths are independent of beliefs and opinions. That's standalone truths. You deny that?
You're the ignorant one if you think you're talking to all the people on Earth here. Most people you talk to here aren't theists and that kind of realists.
So, you say that people here are not talking about stand alone truths. His response is to say that only 10% of the world doesn't talk that way. LOL. What percentage of the world does he think participates in online philosophy forums.

And has he not noticed that popeye and advocate just make a lot of assertions.

I am trying very hard to get something more than lists of assertions out of them. Really is experience sure seems to be a standalone truth.

And let's not talk about VA's hilarious confusion around thinking conditioned on means conditional.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Dontaskme »

The claim that ...The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter .... is a ridiculous claim.

It's like saying the ''Earth'' pre-existed humans is a Non-Starter.

What the heck is a non-starter for a start?? :? :roll:

Lets not forget, that everything that ever was, is and ever will be...must have always existed for the possibility of this discussion to be even happening at all.

Everything knows itself conceptually, in other words, Nothing knows itself conceptually.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:13 am
Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 am
You are totally ignorant!

Philosophical realists and theists [>90% of people on Earth] claim their truths are independent of beliefs and opinions. That's standalone truths. You deny that?
You're the ignorant one if you think you're talking to all the people on Earth here. Most people you talk to here aren't theists and that kind of realists.
So, you say that people here are not talking about stand alone truths. His response is to say that only 10% of the world doesn't talk that way. LOL. What percentage of the world does he think participates in online philosophy forums.

And has he not noticed that popeye and advocate just make a lot of assertions.

I am trying very hard to get something more than lists of assertions out of them. Really is experience sure seems to be a standalone truth.

And let's not talk about VA's hilarious confusion around thinking conditioned on means conditional.
VA's assertion that we mustn't/can't talk about things outside human experience, is much closer to a standalone truth, than what many other people are saying here. He seems to believe in objective morality which is also standalone truth.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Iwannaplato »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:16 am What the heck is a non-starter for a start?? :? :roll:
If we are referring to an assertion or philosophical position it would mean
An idea or argument that cannot be sensibly debated.
Everything knows itself conceptually, in other words, Nothing knows itself conceptually.
I have trouble understanding this one.


Those seem like opposite statements.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:22 am
Dontaskme wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:16 am What the heck is a non-starter for a start?? :? :roll:
If we are referring to an assertion or philosophical position it would mean
An idea or argument that cannot be sensibly debated.
Thank you.

So does that mean there is a claim being made that the moon existed before humans?
Everything knows itself conceptually, in other words, Nothing knows itself conceptually.


Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:22 amThose seem like opposite statements.
There has to be opposites for any thing to be known at all.

If there's just everything...then everything must also be nothing, because everything would never have had a beginning nor an end..and that beginnings and endings are just concepts...that are this everything.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sun May 15, 2022 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:13 am
Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 am
You are totally ignorant!

Philosophical realists and theists [>90% of people on Earth] claim their truths are independent of beliefs and opinions. That's standalone truths. You deny that?
You're the ignorant one if you think you're talking to all the people on Earth here. Most people you talk to here aren't theists and that kind of realists.
So, you say that people here are not talking about stand alone truths. His response is to say that only 10% of the world doesn't talk that way. LOL. What percentage of the world does he think participates in online philosophy forums.

And has he not noticed that popeye and advocate just make a lot of assertions.

I am trying very hard to get something more than lists of assertions out of them. Really is experience sure seems to be a standalone truth.

And let's not talk about VA's hilarious confusion around thinking conditioned on means conditional.
There is this topic "What could make morality objective?" where for hundreds of pages, VA has been trying to convince people that morality is objective. And people have been trying to make him understand that he has no proof for that.

Except VA has no idea what "objective" and "subjective" mean. All this time VA has not realized that HE was the one arguing for standalone truths, by trying to refute standalone truths. And because others perpetually disagree with his nonsense, he thinks others are idiots. This is completely bonkers. :)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:22 am ----------
At least you are one of the very few on this forum who will reply to me...so thanks.


What is the point in debating an idea such as this > The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter


If it cannot be sensibly debated, I'm confused? why bring it up as a topic in the first place...am I missing something?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:19 am VA's assertion that we mustn't/can't talk about things outside human experience, is much closer to a standalone truth, than what many other people are saying here. He seems to believe in objective morality which is also standalone truth.
I think the epistomological issue is just peachy. If there is no way to experience something does it exist? Or can we know things that are not experienced? Or can we know they exist? And then we need to get in there and discuss what it means to experience something. Does it count through a telescope? When are we experiencing something and when are we merely experiencing effect or perhaps just phenomena that we THINK were caused by something. And so on. All peachy.

But they conflate the epistemological issue with the ontological one. At least I think so. So far only advocate has tried to answer my questions. I don't think clearly yet, but I appreciate the effort.

Heck, I am actually far more open to the ontological position than most people. I would guess even VA.

But you have to really look at the consequences. And honestly I don't know what he's on about with certain assertions being non-starters. One can certainly use the FSK of science to support the claim of the moon preexisting humans or dinosaurs, which he has called credible.

It seems like his response should be...OK, you've said The Moon Pre-Exists humans, what's your justification. And then he could criticize that if he wants to. Just because people assert something doesn't mean they consider it an absolute truth. I think he's dragging in anger from other topics. Like they mock him for his FSK and they think they don't have one. When in fact they just think they have better justifications and a better supporting FSK and that he is making a category error when he moves from mirror neurons to moral facts. Or confusing universal (amongst humans) with objective. And he seems to confuse objective with absolutely true, yet another confusion on his part.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:43 am
Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:19 am VA's assertion that we mustn't/can't talk about things outside human experience, is much closer to a standalone truth, than what many other people are saying here. He seems to believe in objective morality which is also standalone truth.
I think the epistomological issue is just peachy. If there is no way to experience something does it exist? Or can we know things that are not experienced? Or can we know they exist? And then we need to get in there and discuss what it means to experience something. Does it count through a telescope? When are we experiencing something and when are we merely experiencing effect or perhaps just phenomena that we THINK were caused by something. And so on. All peachy.

But they conflate the epistemological issue with the ontological one. At least I think so. So far only advocate has tried to answer my questions. I don't think clearly yet, but I appreciate the effort.

Heck, I am actually far more open to the ontological position than most people. I would guess even VA.

But you have to really look at the consequences. And honestly I don't know what he's on about with certain assertions being non-starters. One can certainly use the FSK of science to support the claim of the moon preexisting humans or dinosaurs, which he has called credible.

It seems like his response should be...OK, you've said The Moon Pre-Exists humans, what's your justification. And then he could criticize that if he wants to. Just because people assert something doesn't mean they consider it an absolute truth. I think he's dragging in anger from other topics. Like they mock him for his FSK and they think they don't have one. When in fact they just think they have better justifications and a better supporting FSK and that he is making a category error when he moves from mirror neurons to moral facts. Or confusing universal (amongst humans) with objective. And he seems to confuse objective with absolutely true, yet another confusion on his part.
I think it's because he was self-admittedly a religious fanatic himself in the past, and still mostly thinks like one. So he thinks that if we start assuming the existence of things outside direct experience, like dinosaurs, then we can't stop and will end up assuming God. Because that's what he would do. Which leads to Islam becoming stronger not weaker, and he wants to destroy Islam.

Even though the opposite is true, for most people, a well-grounded understanding of the ASSUMED natural external world as described by science, usally acts against assuming God. If one wants to destroy Islam, it's better to show that Allah is not to be found in the real external natural world.

So as such he is helping Islam, and I'm critical of him because I think he got one thing right, Islam is a "religion" of psychopathy and should go.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:54 am I think it's because he was self-admittedly a religious fanatic himself in the past, and still mostly thinks like one. So he thinks that if we start assuming the existence of things outside direct experience, like dinosaurs, then we can't stop and will end up assuming God. Because that's what he would do. Which leads to Islam becoming stronger not weaker, and he wants to destroy Islam.
OK.
So as such he is helping Islam, and I'm critical of him because I think he got one thing right, Islam is a "religion" of psychopathy and should go.
Or could lead to a secular Islam. A group of scientists say that the brains indicates that X is for the moral good. Their bias, or the corporate bias behind them, not being noticed, at least by them, in their interpretations and projections onto neurons, etc, leading to, well, horrific stuff.

And yeah, I'm no fan of Islam. But I don't think it is the most dangerous belief system out there.
Post Reply