Preconditional Worldview

[joshua040103]

I'm curious to know why other people are inviting themselves into a discussion which actually intended to be between Aron and myself.

Your curiosity doesn't seem to extend to reading clear explanations about how this is a public forum, and that if you wanted a private conversation you're more than capable of arranging it. Remember? Like you somehow managed to send me a private message uninvited? Yes, that's how you would go about doing what you say you want to do.

As Aron Ra has explicitly stated numerous times that he is not interested in a formal debate with you, then by definition, this is not a formal debate. If it were a formal debate, you would have a point... only, what would happen is that the forum moderators would restrict you and he to the discussion thread and no one else would be able to post in it whether they wanted to or not. Again, the fact that this has not occurred should be ample indication to you that you are not having a discussion with Aron Ra alone, but are in fact on a public forum that you just joined and consequently which you do not possess the authority to dictate to.

I'm honestly not in the least bit interested in what anyone else has to say at this time.

Fantastic. I can pretty much assure you that no one here is in the slightest bit interested in anything you've got to say at this time or at any other, but that doesn't mean your rambling illogical assertions won't be addressed.

Further, it's clear that it's more about competence on your part - your interest is irrelevant if you lack the competence to address what others have said.

Either Aron can choose another way to have this discussion so others won't be able to join in, or people could butt out, or... I'm done.

Flounce off if it makes you feel better, but don't pretend to yourself that complete strangers are obliged to perform tricks for you on command. You're perfectly free to do whatever you want, just as others are... and just as others are free to read into your attempts to control the conversation and ignore all those difficult responses to your claims whatever they want to.

I've provided the link to this discussion to several of my Christian brothers, and they're following it. Please take note how none of them have taken it upon themselves to join in uninvited.

Which they are, of course, wholly free to do given that this is a PUBLIC FORUM. For clarity, let's make sure you understand the concept of a PUBLIC FORUM. You realize that you agreed to a series of rules when you signed up here? Do any of these rules indicate that you are entitled to dictate who can respond to your posts?

If not, perhaps I might suggest popping that hubris back up the sticky orifice you extruded it from. No one can oblige you to respond to the posts demolishing your claims, but without a moderator restricting a discussion to being between just you and Aron Ra (something Aron Ra has clearly stated he has no interest in), then your choices are either to like it or lump it.

On what basis do you presume that your reasoning is valid?

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

On what basis do you presume that your reasoning is valid?

Read the first reply to you in this thread.

Because the outcomes of my reasoning can be corroborated against external, empirical events.

Amusingly, one such example would be how you are contending this is a private, restricted conversation between you and Aron Ra, whereas I am contending it's not. Look at the thread and tell us whose capitulation is the accurate version which corresponds to reality?

 

[joshua040103]

On what basis do you presume that your reasoning is valid?

Read the first reply to you in this thread.

Because the outcomes of my reasoning can be corroborated against external, empirical events.

Which you employ your reasoning to evaluate, yes?

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm curious to know why other people are inviting themselves into a discussion which actually intended to be between Aron and myself. I'm honestly not in the least bit interested in what anyone else has to say at this time. Either Aron can choose another way to have this discussion so others won't be able to join in, or people could butt out, or... I'm done. I've provided the link to this discussion to several of my Christian brothers, and they're following it. Please take note how none of them have taken it upon themselves to join in uninvited.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Read the first reply to you in this thread.

Because the outcomes of my reasoning can be corroborated against external, empirical events.

Which you employ your reasoning to evaluate, yes?

No. Evaluation is irrelevant. Either an outcome occurs, or it doesn't.

 

[joshua040103]

Which you employ your reasoning to evaluate, yes?

No. Evaluation is irrelevant. Either an outcome occurs, or it doesn't.

But to determine whether or not an outcome corroborates with your reasoning, you employ your reasoning, yes?

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

No. Evaluation is irrelevant. Either an outcome occurs, or it doesn't.

But to determine whether or not an outcome corroborates with your reasoning, you employ your reasoning, yes?

I am a bit at a loss as to how you can reply to my post which says exactly the opposite of that which you then go on to reassert.

No, evaluation is still irrelevant. As I literally just said to you: it either does, or doesn't - evaluation comes after.

 

[joshua040103]

But to determine whether or not an outcome corroborates with your reasoning, you employ your reasoning, yes?

I am a bit at a loss as to how you can reply to my post which says exactly the opposite of that which you then go on to reassert.

No, evaluation is still irrelevant. As I literally just said to you: it either does, or doesn't - evaluation comes after.

I'll rephrase. In order to conclude that an outcome of your reasoning is corroborated with any outcome, you must employ your reasoning. This is a very simple question, and we both already know the answer.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'll rephrase. In order to conclude that an outcome of your reasoning is corroborated with any outcome, you must employ your reasoning. This is a very simple question, and we both already know the answer.

What you mean is that you are going to keep repeating your assertion regardless of the fact that I have rejected it.

Again, the answer is the same: no. I believe that you are trying to hide behind a semantic game here.

For example, I do not need to employ reasoning to see that a dropped apple falls towards the ground. It is not 'reasoning' to do so. If I had reasoned that dropped objects will fall towards the ground, then tested this against empirical observation by dropping an apple - either the apple does fall towards the ground, or it doesn't. No evaluation is required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation

Evaluation is a systematic determination of a subject's merit, worth and significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards.

I do not need to judge the merit, worth, or significance of any criteria. The apple falls towards the ground, or it doesn't. Evaluation transpires after that fact.

And let's be quite clear before the goal posts move: observation isn't reasoning.

 

[joshua040103]

I'll rephrase. In order to conclude that an outcome of your reasoning is corroborated with any outcome, you must employ your reasoning. This is a very simple question, and we both already know the answer.

What you mean is that you are going to keep repeating your assertion regardless of the fact that I have rejected it.

Assertions aren't refuted by simply refusing to accept them. You either employ your reasoning to come to conclusions in regards to the corroboration of the outcomes of your reasoning to external factors, or you're only interested in being logical when in suits you and this is not one of those times.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

Assertions aren't refuted by simply refusing to accept them.

Assertions aren't justified by repeating them.

If an assertion is an attempt to convince someone of the truth of that which is contended, and it fails to achieve that, then it is difficult to understand how anyone could think repeating it would arrive at a different result.

You either employ your reasoning to come to conclusions in regards to the corroboration of the outcomes of your reasoning to external factors, or you're only interested in being logical when in suits you and this is not one of those times.

No. As I explained to you already. Your assertion is an illogical word game. I do not need to employ reasoning to see or experience an outcome. I merely need to see or experience it. In such a way, an object incapable of reasoning could experience an outcome, because the outcome is not predicated on the reasoning.

That's what you are trying to claim - that outcomes are predicated on reasoning - but it is clearly bananas.

What I am interested in is the truth, and logic is one way of honing closer to it, but I don't make a religion out of it!

 

[joshua040103]

Assertions aren't refuted by simply refusing to accept them.

Assertions aren't justified by repeating them.

If an assertion is an attempt to convince someone of the truth of that which is contended, and it fails to achieve that, then it is difficult to understand how anyone could think repeating it would arrive at a different result.

You either employ your reasoning to come to conclusions in regards to the corroboration of the outcomes of your reasoning to external factors, or you're only interested in being logical when in suits you and this is not one of those times.

No. As I explained to you already. Your assertion is an illogical word game. I do not need to employ reasoning to see or experience an outcome. I merely need to see or experience it. In such a way, an object incapable of reasoning could experience an outcome, because the outcome is not predicated on the reasoning.

That's what you are trying to claim, but it is clearly bananas.

What I am interested in is the truth, and logic is one way of honing closer to it, but I don't make a religion out of it!

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sure, but we can easily summarize what you are trying to claim:

You want to say that reasoning is predicated on reasoning.

Except, when shown that the claimed circle is broken with an external observation - something outside of reasoning - which could either corroborate or disconfirm that reasoning, you then declare it reasoning as well, or that one must employ reasoning to see whether the reasoning was confirmed or falsified. At which point, you basically insist that all things that humans do are reasoning, and therefore engage in either circularity or speciousness.

But we still have a scenario where the world either confirms or disconfirms the reasoning, regardless of whether we also need to use reasoning to decide (which we don't).

Ergo, it's not circular.

What is circular is, as you did, claiming that the basis for all reasoning is the existence of a particular divine entity, then continuing that because there is reason, so God must exist which then also 'justifies' your contention that reasoning is a product of that god's existence.

You have skipped the crucial part of validating your claims against the external. You are engaging in that which you are trying to claim is my position. Your premise is used as the proof of the contention.

Of course, you wouldn't accept your own reasoning were it applied to any other God or quantity you don't believe in.

To wit:

The faculty of speech, hearing and sight is a gift from Vé the third son of Borr as expounded in the Edda. Without speech, hearing and sight, we would be unable to observe, experience and form thoughts, and consequently wouldn't be able to discuss where speech, hearing and sight come from let alone engage in reason which necessitates some form of language to exist. Therefore the concept of discussing ideas is a logical inevitability of the Norse worldview, and it consequently justifies belief in that worldview.

So does this mean that Borr and Vé existed?

Does it mean that speech, hearing, sight and the discussion of ideas are predicated on their existence?

Would you simply accept these as factual? Or would you, as I suspect, reject these contentions because you do not accept any of the claims made?

If so, why would you expect anyone who doesn't share your beliefs to lend your contentions credence?

However, your arguments to me have basically followed this extension: you says you can see... but how do you know you can see? Because you see that you can see! And that sight is predicated on.... the contention of Vé.

With no disrespect to your good self, your argument is utterly asinine - it's not even undergrad philosophy. It's the 'prove it' game where you challenge someone to prove anything to you, and each time they give an answer you demand that they prove it.

To me, all that indicates is a lack of understanding about the nature of proof.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm curious to know why other people are inviting themselves into a discussion which actually intended to be between Aron and myself.

Because you're on a little thing called a "message board". You may have heard of them.

Private debate thread is here: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=15743

Fill your boots.

 

[Deleted member 619]

In order to conclude that an outcome of your reasoning is corroborated with any outcome, you must employ your reasoning. This is a very simple question, and we both already know the answer.

Why is that a problem?

 

[Sparhafoc]

In order to conclude that an outcome of your reasoning is corroborated with any outcome, you must employ your reasoning. This is a very simple question, and we both already know the answer.

Why is that a problem?

He's trying to pretend there's not an external step which corroborates the act of reasoning.

Basically, his argument would ultimately lead to the notion that the apple dropping is predicated on the reasoning that went before it, rather than being wholly independent of that reasoning.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm curious to know why other people are inviting themselves into a discussion which actually intended to be between Aron and myself.

Because you're on a little thing called a "message board". You may have heard of them.

Private debate thread is here: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=15743

Fill your boots.

Unless I am singularly misinterpreting Aron Ra's words, he has been pretty clear that he doesn't want a debate with Joshua because debates are a game played to convince a 3rd party. Rather, he is hoping to actually engage Joshua and get him to understand.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183739#p183739

But as i have twice pointed out to him already, and he somehow still hasn't pieced together, it cannot be a debate because I don't want it to be the two of us talking past each other to convince a third party. I'm trying to reason with Joshua himself. That's why it can't be a debate. Hopefully after repeating this explanation three times now, I won't have to explain it to him a fourth time.

 

[australopithecus]

It's there if it's wanted. I was asked to create a thread so if they don't want to debate privately then no harm done.

 

[AronRa]

There are people with a desperate need-to-believe and those with only a desire to understand. Those who need to believe will readily lie to defend their delusion: especially if they're so addicted to it, they think that if their imaginary friend doesn't exist, then life is devalued, and people become no more than "meat machines":

But if you're honest, then your goal is to understand. The only way to improve understanding is to seek out the flaws in your current perspective and correct them. So you'll never assert any fact or knowledge claim that you can't verify. Every postulation must be backed by evidence, and every interpretation must be objectively verifiable. Because biases are deceptive, you'll want to minimize that too, as well as your own potential for error by having others examine your work--to make sure that your information and your interpretation of it are both as accurate as possible. If you've gotten something wrong, you'll want others to help recognize that and point it out. Better to be proven wrong than still be wrong and never know it. Accuracy and accountability are paramount, where neither of these matter at all to religious believers.

However, if you just wanna believe what you wanna believe and you don't care what the truth is, then your whole argument could be nothing more than an illusion based on a word game. In that case, you won't want anyone else listening in and pointing out everything you've said that was wrong. That's why Joshua keeps complaining that other people can comment here. He still imagines he has a chance against me alone if everyone else would quit blowing the smoke away from his mirrors.

If we were in a religious discussion group, it wouldn't matter how many dishonest delusional wanna-believers there were chiming in. I could choose to ignore any or all of them and focus only on correcting Joshua's wall of errors, answering, properly addressing every point or query without fail. But if I had time, I would probably cure all his associates' madness too.

 

[Sparhafoc]

There are people with a desperate need-to-believe and those with only a desire to understand.

Desperate desire to understand here!

One of the things I value most about rationalist discussion fora is not that I get to spout my opinion on a load of ideas, or that I get to wrangle with the intellectually afflicted, but that I see other people who value the things I do but who thanks to their unique personality and experiences phrase things in such a way that a new insight on an old topic is elucidated. All day long I've been thinking about Hack's post about logic essentially being about resolving contradictions, which he in turn was enticed to think about by Vazscep. Even if this happens only rarely, it's what makes such places immensely valuable to me.