Same here. Found out my car might have a fuel leak, which would explain the excess fuel consupmtion. Pretty down about that, I dont make that much money and that as well as needing my auto serviced, which is putting me down a little. Do you drive?
Pretty good, kinda bored. Haven't been doin much lately. You?
Hey there, how've you been?
My mind wanders all over the place lol. My chief interest philosophically is in metaphysics, which is funny since I've discovered that to be the field least compatible with logic and common sense. Inside the box however, I'm interested in particle physics, nuclear science and the like. Really the only field I don't tend to spend much time thinking about would be ethics, since I'm a moral nihilist. Actually, my argument for moral nihilism was the original basis for the argument that would become the one I gave for absolute uncertainty. I used to think everything was absolute, governed by logic alone. This lead me to become a pretty cold person, as I didn't really care what was right (meaning morally) as long as it was correct. Ethics however is one of the most common fields of argument people get into anymore. So I tried to find a logical belief on the fundamentals of morallity, so I could form a logical argument in ethical debates. One of the principles of logic I'd learned was that a normative conclusion (what ought to be) could never be drawn strictly from factual (what is) premises, you need at least one normative preise for a normative conclusion. This lead me into an infinite regression argument following nearly identical form to the one we've been having. If two logical people disagree on a normative conclusion in a deductive argument, assuming neither used fallacious reasoning, the only reason for this would be disagreement on the premises. Any factual premises could be checked against reality, so if that's where the disagreement was, it could be resolved. If not, the disagreement would have to be on the normative premise. And then once again, that would rely partially on facts, but on at least one belief, as would that belief... which lead me into that regression far enough to realize, that no moral theory could ever be a fact, as it was literally impossible that it could be based in fact alone, which meant it had no place in my world, where fact was all that mattered. Wasn't until quite a while after I came up with this that I realized it also applied to what I previously considered undeniable facts. Really though, anything that catches my interest, I'll stop and ponder. Sometimes I learn interesting things, sometimes I feel as though I just wasted minutes of my life.
I feel the same way. Its so interesting to hear so many different opinions about the subject. What else have you pondered? or do you currently think about in terms of reality and what you percieve to be truths?
I agree with some of that. It isn't very useful to know this, which is why it's such an unsatisfying answer. It doesn't lead us anywhere, we can't abandon our theories and perceptions just because we can't be certain of them. We need to have that fundamental belief whether it's perfectly logical or not, otherwise we can't deal with reality. The rest of that argument fits in only with one fundamental belief. Reducing spirituality to something less than science because we don't percieve it, or place any value in it, because in our world it doesn't mean anything, is pretty much the same thing you were trying to do before lol. I agree with the last paragraph, but only because I have faith in a similar fundamental belief, we don't really have a good reason to believe that, but because of who we are and how we see and understand the world, that's the conclusion we come to when we think within the boundaries of our beliefs. Though we can't be certain of this conclusion, pragmatically speaking, we do still have to commit to some belief in the end and work with the conclusions we can get out of it. If we aren't willing to seek new knoweldge in spite of not having certainty, we'll never be able to have certainty. If we stick with our beliefs and keep moving forward, we at least have a chance.
Ive spoken with David Tyler of the Athiest Experience in texas about our ultimate conclusion and he had a defusing response. Heres what I told him. "so basically the debate ended up establishing that since neither belief can prove the fundementals of existence, neither one is more worthy of belief than the other. " and his reply was as follows: " This seems to be an argument from the postmodernist school that all beliefs are equally valid. It also has a bit of solipsism mixed in with the idea that we cannot be sure or knowing anything. This can be interesting to speculate but is otherwise not very useful. I may be a brain in a vat but I am none the less forced to deal with the world as I can perceive it. There is also a big difference between ideas supported by evidence and those supported by hot air. Spirituality is a meaningless term. Does it refer to ghosts and goblins and such or only to the emotional side of human nature. If you are talking about the supernatural and claim that science cannot measure it, then what do you have? Something that is invisible, immeasurable and cannot act in this world. In this case the spiritual and the non-existent are the same thing for all practical purposes. I am a reductionist and to me the spiritual is part of the emotional side of human nature. This aspect of being human becomes more measurable all the time. Anything like the mind which is what the brain does, can be ultimately evaluated by science. We may not know how yet but if something acts in this world it can be studied." What do you think?
Oh I'm sure there are any number of possibilities that could concievably be believed by people with the appropriate thoughts and perceptions. Each would be every bit as plasuible as any other. But for all practical purpose, there are only two options, there either is a God, or there is not. There are many concievable ideas of how a universe could come about with either, but ultimately one of those two will be correct. If we establish there was a divine creator, we still don't know which one, or if any religion portrayed it correctly, similarly knowing there was no divine brings us no closer to knowing what exactly happened at the beginning (which is where alot of the other options would come in, probably what you meant when suggesting a third). A dull answer, but really, a huge step forward when approaching the problem to realize that we can't be too comfortable with our beliefs, and must always look at the whole picture. And it is an answer, one's that's much harder to pick holes in than any others I've heard, which is one of the reasons I felt so awesome when I reached that answer. I too was only able to accept my own conclusion begrudgingly, but really, doubt isn't a bad thing. Doubt has been the beginning of some of the most important of all discoveries. And believe me, I know you'll keep thinking about it. It's damn near impossible not to once you reach this conclusion, I should know lol. And any time. Arguing is one of my favorite things lol. Looking for answers is what I've decided to make my purpose in life. Nothing fulfills me as much as discovering something like this, and it just makes me want more. Society can go screw a goat, I do what I want =D
We cant be sure theres not a third option either. It is a rather dull conclusion for something that requires such deep thought, but it is an answer at least. Well I guess I have no choice but to agree with that for now even though im still doubting, it just seems easier to accept it for now. I'll be thinking about this a lot from now on. You've been incredibly insightful and very respectful, thanks for that. Ill be sure to keep a record of this conversation for future reference, I think its important. Hopefully we can find some answers in our lifetimes. Although I'm sure at some point society will force us to forget about such things.
Pertty much, yup. Not a very satisfying conclusion, is it? lol. Took me quite some time to get deep enough into my own beliefs to ultimately wind up with that conclusion. Quite a disappointment in some ways, but in a sense I felt pretty cool that I'd come far enough to accept something like that. I continue to stick with my beliefs in spite of this knowledge, because I think science and logic are the only hope for attaining the only answers that can ever let us escape from that rather lame conclusion.
But thats what I meant. Neither is more valid than the other since neither can provide the true fundemntals for our existence. Is that correct?
Nope. Actually quite the opposite. I'm saying we must ultimately admit that neither is certainly valid to establishing some conclusions, since we can't prove the fundamentals they rely on. It's only valid in its own context, just like we can only have an intelligent conversation when we're speaking the same language.
So we dont percieve spirtitual evidence to be valid evidence because we dont trust in it since it doesnt deal with scientific evidence. And what you are saying is that we must accept it as equal relevance to science since neither one can prove the fundementals of existence?
But I also know it's a duck, even with other beliefs, we both know this is a duck based on senses and ideas we both trust. The primary difference is that some fundamnetal beliefs include trust in other senses, such as a sense of spirituality, or a thought that faith is as valid as evidence, which means in any argument they attempt to pose, it is. On points that only deal with senses and ideas we both trust, we'll agree, because we're playing by the same rules (most of everybody's understanding of reality falls into this category), on others we won't, because we don't agree on what qualifies as relevant evidence and good reason. For example, in an arguement about the existence of God, you and I won't accept feelings or spiritual 'evidence', because it's not a sense we trust in. However if an argument brought forth visual and physical evidence of God, we would be forced to acknowledge it, because we do trust in those. The reason we don't have an agreement, is because neither of us can prove it to the other with only evidence they believe is relevant and trustworthy. Again, you don't have to have faith to complete each and every belief you have, just the first, which governs them all. I don't have to have faith in each and every point I've raised in this argument, just faith in my logic to make them worth anything. Similarly, once you have sufficient evidence, you accept or reject a conclusion, you don't need faith in that specific conclusion. But you do ultumately have faith invested into the belief that correspondence of evidence is enough to establish truth, without that, evidence wouldn't matter to you. Faith isn't a part of every link in the chain, just one, but that means faith is still always a part of the chain, no matter how small that part may be, because that one link must always have faith. I wouldn't go so far as to say that. My set of beliefs leads me to believe that there is one universal truth, and one universal existence, and that with enough knowledge, intelligence, and empirical data, we will one day become completely aware of it. I lack the evidence to prove that, but that's the only thing that makes sense in my beliefs (alot of that is probably also a part of your fundamental beliefs). One could say that that is my fundamental belief. That belief shapes my others, that only universal senses and ideas should be able to establish that truth, that that truth is only reached when it's absolutely certain; and all of my other knowledge and beliefs all go back in some way to that fundamental understanding of reality, which I only have based on faith. My ability to function in that reality is entirely contingent upon my ability to accept it as the truth, which I can't do with logic and reason alone. I don't believe that the truth is beyond knowing, just that we haven't gotten there yet, and that until we do, we shouldn't accept anything without some degree of skepticism.
also, to make an end to the debate, would you say that because everyone percieves things differently, nothing could ever 'be'?
