What do you think of other members in this forum?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mark noble
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 02:36 pm
@Amperage,
Hello all,

I find you all quite fascinating.
To judge a person by nationality, religion, age, colour, etc; is purely judgemental of one's own reflective construct.
Judge not others, lest you be judged (more to the point) by the method you judge, you are judged. And it will come around.

People are people. We all have similarities, but no two are the same.
And that's what I adore about you all - The variety of you.

I see specialists and I see novices, I'm a generalist.
And I would love to believe we each can find a common ground on which to inspire ourselves and those in our wake.

"Where variety fails to spread her feet
stagnation rests her head, in sleep".

Journey well, and fruit.

Mark...
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 05:55 pm
@platorepublic,
What do you think the SIMILARITIES are between ALL of us?

For one I would say we are ALL brave.

Very few people have the courage to put themselves out there as we do on a daily and regular basis and hope to be exalted or be torn down.
We open our very hearts and minds to a population who we have absolutely no control over.
Surly this is dangerous and treacherous even for the most stalwart and self assured and confident of us.
I don't have much to do with proofing established philosophy and even with a poor education with a lacking ability and availability I think I am rather brave to be here amongst you who are usually my superior and never my inferior.
Yes I think we are all really BRAVE.
Just to be available and vulnerable to respond and ask for response to and from someone who questions your belief and systems, our very convictions on open forum is something even some devoutly religious don't and cant make themselves available or vulnerable for or too.
And more to think we can actually aid and bolster people and hearts and strengthen their conviction is to be well in possession of your hearts and minds intentions and sometimes intellects.
Imagine being proved senseless as I think all of us at least once have had one of our arguments or beliefs or convictions been at some time or other shown to be 'silly' 'fanciful' 'deluded' 'wrong' and still come back for more CORRECTION.
It is a brave philosopher who opens him self to being corrected and shown to be made up. Imaginary.
Our very SOULS are at stake in a forum where it is part of our job to prove the existence of such things as souls.
Brave each and every one of us.
We should be kissing the ground each and every one of us treads. And absolutely never spit out.
Even if it is our duty to correct their gait and strut.
I counted and there are probably a maximum and I mean a maximum of about 1000 regular users of wonderful open forums such as this in the entire English thinking speaking typing world (and that is a lot of people who think and philosophize as writ), and just looking at the Introduction area shows there are an awful lot of people out there who wish they could do as we do regularly, but for some reason are either put off or not self assured controlled aware deluded or BRAVE enough to continue to do so.
Which is why I think we have so many crazies amongst us because you have to be a little crazy to be so brave and so certain you are an instrument of such power and responsibility.
I know it is bravery because sometimes I am terrified of coming here or hearing a response, a rebuttal even a denial but something in my need for survival forces me to banish more and more fear.
Something in me want to prove and be proven right, which all comes at the cost of CORRECTION.
Cost of evolution and change is to be brave enough and awake and ready and willing enough to face yourself and CHANGE it.
Killing something or ending somethings life is scary business.
Uncertain futures each and every philosopher who ever lived and learned, taught an died. And what's more it is us and our ability to change or stay the same that WILL ultimately kill us all.
You do realise we ultimately must all die for our convictions, which makes it so very bloody important to have the right ones.
We are not being paid to be brave, (except maybe in kindness, which so few of you allow yourselves to do or don't know how to) we must know we cannot come here to be fully recognised fully paid, we come here to face and fight our own fears and philosophies and face and fight the fears and philosophies of others.
Let me say that again in case you missed it;
WE ARRIVE AND DEPART HERE
TO FACE AND FIGHT OUR OWN FEARS AND PHILOSOPHIES
AND TO
FACE AND FIGHT THE FEARS AND PHILOSOPHIES OF OTHERS.
(EVEN TO FLIGHT.)
We come here for something,
What do you think I or you come here for?
What do you come here to fight or to flight?
What goals if any do we all share?
I think you and I are all really brave.
(or just stupid?) (crazy is a kind of bravery?)

So will try to steer this thread slightly and ask,

what do you think we ALL here have in COMMON?

What would you like we ALL here to have in COMMON?

What do you think YOU or the OTHER I come here for?

What goals do you think YOU or the OTHER I share?

Thank you for you time and patience,
sometime sun (your best friend and worst enemy:))(or it could be worst friend and best enemy:))
The sun is smiling, the moon is winking.
The sun is rising, the moon is waning.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 06:05 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;163544 wrote:
Not that I have a problem with this in theory but, perhaps just to play devils advocate, I think this can be a dangerous line of thinking.

I will start off with a quote from a movie a quite enjoy. The setup is two guys discussing the best way to get out of a precarious situation. Guy1 poses a possible solution to which Guy2 responds, "can't be done."
To which Guy1's retorts, "The person who says it can't be done is always interrupted by the one who just did it!"

I think historically this is bore out time and time again. Then there is Socrates who said I know I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing.

As I said, in theory what you said sounds good, but more often than not people too dogmatically cling to what they "know" to the point that they are unwilling to explore or be open to anything else.


Well said. Let's imagine a man going back in time, but wihthout being able to take any technology with him. He starts telling people that humans will land on the moon, take pictures of Mars, what the speed of light is in a vacuum, that space is curved, etc.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 07:28 PM ----------

Even the few who have alienated my affection remind me of my own personal history, (or possible future?). That's the reason a notion like dialectical progress appeals to me, and the concept of determinate negation. I've tried lots of ideas on for size thus far. I wanted the "truth" or something prior to it, the "good." You tell me. Call it hunch, but I think this is universal.

Sure, we tend to find the good in what we are already good at, or at least in what we think we're good at. I've learned from others here, philosophically. And, it's a social education to involve oneself in a forum. Philosophy does attract a certain type, shall we say. Either phallic-father or wonder-boy perhaps. How nice to bring the commandments down from the mountain. How nice to open portals into the fourth dimension. Or even something simpler, like the way to contentment. Etc.
 
qualia
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 07:12 pm
@Reconstructo,
I have met with nothing less than grace and insight and of the few people I have had the chance to chat with, I can seriously offer them nothing less than a deep felt gratidude and thanks. I really don't understand what relevance age, sex, gender, creed, colour, or what have you, has to do with critical reflection and enquiry, and find it disappointing that perhaps some folk are still addressing and distinguishing and judging others on these grounds.

You wanna know what my problem is with this site and the writers I have had the pleasure to talk with?

It's their damn prolificity and virtuosity! It's that there is so much activity going on here, so many great writers, thinkers, threads and posts.

Thinking about this positively, I realise that I am really quite a superficial, slow and banal thinker, and need time to absorb what is being said, if only to add a little contribution. But on the downside, what I can muster generally comes too late. By the time I've thought of some meaningful post, or reply the thread has bounded on in other dimensions and insights. I just can't keep up and fear that I am permanently derailing threads, or offering crappy posts.

Paraphrasing GoshisDead back on page one, I guess I'm your authentic spanish male, the quixotic idealist, tilting at his windmill, and enjoying it like only a crazy donkey riding spaniard can!
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 07:24 pm
@qualia,
qualia;163651 wrote:
I have met with nothing less than grace and insight and of the few people I have had the chance to chat with, I can seriously offer them nothing less than a deep felt gratidude and thanks. I really don't understand what relevance age, sex, gender, creed, colour, or what have you, has to do with critical reflection and enquiry, and find it disappointing that perhaps some folk are still addressing and distinguishing and judging others on these grounds.

You wanna know what my problem is with this site and the writers I have had the pleasure to talk with?

It's their damn prolificity and virtuosity! It's that there is so much activity going on here, so many great writers, thinkers, threads and posts.

Thinking about this positively, I realise that I am really quite a superficial, slow and banal thinker, and need time to absorb what is being said, if only to add a little contribution. But on the downside, what I can muster generally comes too late. By the time I've thought of some meaningful post, or reply the thread has bounded on in other dimensions and insights. I just can't keep up and fear that I am permanently derailing threads, or offering crappy posts.

Paraphrasing GoshisDead back on page one, I guess I'm your authentic spanish male, the quixotic idealist, tilting at his windmill, and enjoying it like only a crazy donkey riding spaniard can!

Play it again Sam.
If you think it has been said it still has not been extolled by your hand.
Give us your version, often times the 'fresh' descriptive perspective will refresh the mind and bring new and fresher insight to and from all.
Please try not to despair maybe just try to be the first one to read a thread, that is how I started.
Now I just start them.
Your opinion always counts with me, don't give up, you are needed here.
Answer some of my questions they have not as yet been fully recognised or addressed but reading your post so full of desire and hope I think you already have answered for me at least some more things that bring us together rather than divide us.
Thanks and hang on in there, its about to get wild.
 
Emil
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 09:38 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;163510 wrote:
I am reasonably sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended. Grammatically, it is one who really hates faith, not one that really hates faith. Many people for whom English is their native language get this wrong. And so, in the future, it may become correct to say "that" in such a context, but for the moment, it is still incorrect.

In such phrases, one properly uses "who" for people, and "that" for things.

Thus endeth the grammar lesson.


As for hating faith (when defined as "belief without support of evidence"), what could be a better mark of virtue than that? For why, see:

The Ethics of Belief


Yes, yes. I sometimes use the non-person pronoun to annoy people (as they use implicature and deduce that I think they are not persons). I didn't in this case. It is in fact the same way in danish, just with other words of course. I don't think using "that" in such sentences disturbs the meaning in this case unless one uses implicature in philosophy, and that is bound to get one into trouble anyway. Wink

Much playing with language results in something that is incorrect (though I prefer the terms uncommon or non-standard to avoid normative connotations, similarly common or standard instead of correct for the same reason). I don't think writing nonstandard english is always a problem, though you seem keen on using standard english (I'm not suggesting you dislike nonstandard english or think everybody ought to use standard english). I prefer to use nonstandard english. For instance, I still type languages (danish, english, etc.) with no capitalization of the beginning letter ("English" > "english"). I tried using Cut Spelling over on FRDB but apparently it was too disturbing for many people. Should I use some non-standard system, I should choose a more moderate one it seems to avoid too many problems.

Implicature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

---------- Post added 05-13-2010 at 05:38 AM ----------

GoshisDead;163511 wrote:
Yay for me falling directly in the middle of the bell curve!


Well, when you say it yourself...
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 10:34 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;163544 wrote:
Pyrrho;163369 wrote:

When considering what is and what is not possible, some people know more than others, and those who know more will sometimes appear closed-minded to people who know little or nothing. This is due to the idea of epistemic possibility. What is epistemically possible is dependent upon a particular individual's state of knowledge. It may be that a complex contradiction, for example, may not be recognized as a contradiction by someone, and so it may be epistemically possible for someone. Basically, the less one knows, the more things are epistemically possible. This explains why people who know little or nothing about how science works often imagine all sorts of silly things are "possible". But those who know more recognize that many things are not possible, and so they are not "open" to those ideas that are known to be impossible. To someone who knows absolutely nothing, everything seems possible.

Not that I have a problem with this in theory but, perhaps just to play devils advocate, I think this can be a dangerous line of thinking.

I will start off with a quote from a movie a quite enjoy. The setup is two guys discussing the best way to get out of a precarious situation. Guy1 poses a possible solution to which Guy2 responds, "can't be done."
To which Guy1's retorts, "The person who says it can't be done is always interrupted by the one who just did it!"

I think historically this is bore out time and time again. Then there is Socrates who said I know I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing.

As I said, in theory what you said sounds good, but more often than not people too dogmatically cling to what they "know" to the point that they are unwilling to explore or be open to anything else.


The problem occurs when people claim to know things that they do not know. If one uses good judgment, one will know that it is possible to be in error about something, and so one will be willing to consider new evidence. But that does not mean that one never comes to any preliminary or tentative conclusions, and it does not mean that one should waste time with every crackpot idea that one encounters. If there is no real evidence presented for something against which one has evidence, then it ought not be believed. If I were to say, that every night, I fly around my bedroom, as I find it relaxing before going to sleep, would you believe me? Suppose I had a witness or two to this miraculous event. Would their word be enough for you? The simple fact is, people often expect others to take ridiculous ideas seriously when they have no solid evidence in favor of their claim at all. And they expect a new refutation every time some crackpot idea is expressed. That is exceedingly unreasonable of them, and they ought not expect it. If someone is putting forth an idea that is such that there is general evidence against it, they need to put forth some solid evidence before anyone should take them seriously. Think where we would be if instead of working on new problems, every scientist took the time to investigate every silly claim that every fool and charlatan made. Do you seriously think that would be a good use of their time? Do you like having the products of modern technology? You would not have them if everyone wasted their efforts refuting already disproven theories that are presented without any real evidential support.

Here is a thread that might interest you, as it deals with an outrageous claim:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/8876-walking-water.html

Now, do you think that anyone should bother with a serious attempt at refuting the claims made? Do you really need to do that, when it is obvious how such a thing may be faked? If it were real, it could be done in front of witnesses in all sorts of public places, and it would then be either confirmed or shown not to work. But it would be a total waste of time to try to look into every crackpot story that is put forth, when they have not presented any real evidence in favor of it.

If the people making the video mentioned in the thread at the link above kept to their story, and refused to ever do it again, how would you go about proving that they were wrong in what they stated? Can you prove that they did not walk on water? Or are you going to tell us that you believe the story, or believe that it is possible?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 12:49 am
@qualia,
qualia;163651 wrote:
By the time I've thought of some meaningful post, or reply the thread has bounded on in other dimensions and insights. I just can't keep up and fear that I am permanently derailing threads, or offering crappy posts.


hey don't say that, I have gotten a lot out of your contributions already (don't let it go to your head though :bigsmile:)

---------- Post added 05-13-2010 at 04:52 PM ----------

I must like it, I can't drag myself away, for some reason. Maybe it is because my job is a bit quiet and there's nobody in my world to talk to about these things. I am OK with just about everyone, on the whole they are a very interesting and diverse lot. Learning not to over-react is one of my main motivations for posting.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 07:49 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;163759 wrote:
The problem occurs when people claim to know things that they do not know. If one uses good judgment, one will know that it is possible to be in error about something, and so one will be willing to consider new evidence. But that does not mean that one never comes to any preliminary or tentative conclusions, and it does not mean that one should waste time with every crackpot idea that one encounters. If there is no real evidence presented for something against which one has evidence, then it ought not be believed. If I were to say, that every night, I fly around my bedroom, as I find it relaxing before going to sleep, would you believe me? Suppose I had a witness or two to this miraculous event. Would their word be enough for you? The simple fact is, people often expect others to take ridiculous ideas seriously when they have no solid evidence in favor of their claim at all. And they expect a new refutation every time some crackpot idea is expressed. That is exceedingly unreasonable of them, and they ought not expect it. If someone is putting forth an idea that is such that there is general evidence against it, they need to put forth some solid evidence before anyone should take them seriously. Think where we would be if instead of working on new problems, every scientist took the time to investigate every silly claim that every fool and charlatan made. Do you seriously think that would be a good use of their time? Do you like having the products of modern technology? You would not have them if everyone wasted their efforts refuting already disproven theories that are presented without any real evidential support.

Here is a thread that might interest you, as it deals with an outrageous claim:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/8876-walking-water.html

Now, do you think that anyone should bother with a serious attempt at refuting the claims made? Do you really need to do that, when it is obvious how such a thing may be faked? If it were real, it could be done in front of witnesses in all sorts of public places, and it would then be either confirmed or shown not to work. But it would be a total waste of time to try to look into every crackpot story that is put forth, when they have not presented any real evidence in favor of it.

If the people making the video mentioned in the thread at the link above kept to their story, and refused to ever do it again, how would you go about proving that they were wrong in what they stated? Can you prove that they did not walk on water? Or are you going to tell us that you believe the story, or believe that it is possible?
I don't necessarily disagree with your first half.

As far as miracles is concerned I would first wonder why anyone would think that something which could be classified as a miracle should be infinitely repeatable? For if it were, would it not then cease to be a miracle?

A miracle though, I suppose, need be nothing more than something which happens to which
the cause is hidden. And God can work miraculously through natural law. It is not outside the realm of nature for a pencil on my desk to fall through the desk, but if that were to happen, I would find it quite miraculous.

Secondly, and in terms of personal testimony, I would say if God is responsible for miracles, should they exist, then it seems perfectly reasonable, to me, that any miracle would have been specifically purposed for those who witnessed said miracle.

Next, There are countless things that I'm sure you have not personally witnessed yet you believe. Eventually you either have to believe what someone tells you, what you hear, what you see, what you touch, or what you taste, or what you think, otherwise nothing will get accomplished in that direction either. If scientists had to personally witness everything they believed do you seriously think that would be a good use of their time? Do you like having the products of modern technology? You would not have them if everyone wasted their efforts personally testing things which were told to them through the personal testimony(or written documents) of colleagues.

Lastly, the whole idea that testing or having more people view something, I don't see, where that would make a difference. Skeptics will still be skeptical and those who believe don't even need to witness it. There are still those who don't believe we ever went to the moon and those who still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JKF. This same argument holds for those people who say, if God is real then why doesn't He show Himself. Yet, nothing in their life or testimony leads me to believe that they would even believe their own eyes if God did show Himself. There have been countless miracles performed over the years witnessed by a countless number of people, yet these events are still not universally accepted or at least not accepted as miracles. Look up the Six Day War miracles sometime and read of all the accounts of miracles that took place in that war. Course I know it will not suffice for anything.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 08:23 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;163476 wrote:
The reason why I brought it up is because the original poster is from the UK and seemed to try to make a link between close-mindedness and arrogance on the forum to being predominately a phenomenon with members from the U.S.

Lets say I posted a thread asking what the community thought of members in general without specifically pointing them out. Then I went on to write: there are many members on the forum that are Dutch. Some of them are total jacka$$es and some others are total ninnies. But I am not saying that I am any better and I'm probably worse than that.

It is the way that the original poster posted his comments. He seems to have an agenda in the way he constructed his post.


Yes, and furthermore, he is assuming that there is what he is pleased to call, "closed-minded arrogance" on the forum. One man's closed -minded arrogance may be another man's frustration with empty-headed foolishness, and to call that latter, "closed-minded arrogance" is to display what is being condemned.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 08:44 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;163851 wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with your first half.

As far as miracles is concerned I would first wonder why anyone would think that something which could be classified as a miracle should be infinitely repeatable? For if it were, would it not then cease to be a miracle?

A miracle need be nothing more than something which happens to which
the cause is hidden. And God can work miraculously through natural law.

Secondly, and in terms of personal testimony, I would say if God is responsible for miracles, should they exist, then it seems perfectly reasonable, to me, that any miracle would have been specifically purposed for those who witnessed said miracle.

Next, There are countless things that I'm sure you have not personally witnessed yet you believe. Eventually you either have to believe what someone tells you, what you hear, what you see, what you touch, or what you taste, or what you think, otherwise nothing will get accomplished in that direction either. If scientists had to personally witness everything they believed do you seriously think that would be a good use of their time? Do you like having the products of modern technology? You would not have them if everyone wasted their efforts personally testing things which were told to them through the personal testimony(or written documents) of colleagues.

Lastly, the whole idea that testing or having more people view something, I don't see, where that would make a difference. Skeptics will still be skeptical and those who believe don't even need to witness it. There are still those who don't believe we ever went to the moon and those who still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JKF. This same argument holds for those people who say, if God is real then why doesn't He show Himself. Yet, nothing in their life or testimony leads me to believe that they would even believe their own eyes if God did show Himself. There have been countless miracles performed over the years but a countless number of people yet these events are not accepted or at least not accepted as miracles. Look up the Six Day War miracles sometime and read of all the accounts of miracles that took place in that war. Course I know it will not suffice for anything.



Human testimony is evidence, but its quality is dependent upon knowing something about the honesty of the person and the ability of the person to know what they are talking about. William Kingdon Clifford does a good job of discussing this in "The Ethics of Belief", in part "II.-THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY". And David Hume also discusses this issue in An Equiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, "Of Miracles". The evidence from testimony is always limited, because we know that some people are liars, and many lie occasionally, and people also make honest mistakes, and so it cannot trump all possible contrary evidence. And so, when we are talking about something for which one has good contrary evidence, such as the claim that people can walk on unfrozen water without floatation devices or some special apparatus, human testimony will never have enough force to make such a story reasonable to believe. But when the majority of known experts in science say something about their field, it is ordinarily good enough to accept. This is for a couple of reasons. First, they should know what they are talking about, and second, science, by its very nature, is self-correcting and ruthless against those who make bad errors. We see this in the "cold fusion" example of a few years back; for a while, there was in some circles the phrase "as dumb as a Utah scientist" to express extreme stupidity, because the people who promoted the evidently false idea where from Utah. And, with science, if one has any serious doubts about a particular point, one may look into the evidence for oneself if one wishes; one need not simply rely on testimony for everything in science if one does not wish to do so. So, when they say something in their field, which is promoted by the majority of the recognized experts, most likely, what they say is true. Of course, the possibly of error always exists, and should new evidence come to light, one ought to be open to changing one's mind. But in most cases, that does not happen, and certainly most of the people who promote contrary ideas are crackpots (as those you mention in your post).

To explain the reach of human testimony a bit further, if I were to say that I drive a Ford, you would likely take my word for it, as it would be a very ordinary thing to drive a Ford, and there is probably little motive to lie about it. If I were to say I drive a Ferrari, you would be more likely to doubt this, both because Ferraris are more rare, and because they are a status symbol so that I may have a motive to lie, so there are two counts against it. So believing the first but not the second can be done by applying exactly the same standards. But you know that both are possible, because you know that people do own Fords, and you know that people do own Ferraris, so you know that I could be telling the truth in either case. But if I were to claim that instead of driving a rare car, I made a miraculous claim, such as that I teleport where I want to be simply by willing myself to be there, that would be something that you have no evidence that anyone does, and so it would take an even greater evidence to make that reasonable to believe. Taking my word for that, even if I had never lied to you in the past, would be unreasonable, because you know that people lie, and you know that people sometimes make honest mistakes. I could be crazy, or joking, or lying, and those are all things that you know are real possibilities, though you do not know that my teleporting is a real possibility, so any of those is more reasonable to believe than that I teleport, unless I provided substantially more evidence than merely claiming that it is so. In other words, human testimony has some evidential force, but it is not an unlimited force, and may be counteracted by the nature of the claim made. Ordinary claims require only ordinary evidence, and extraordinary things require extraordinary evidence. And one may also say that miraculous claims require miraculous evidence.

As for whether god can work miracles or not, Hume has the proper response for this (from the above link):

Quote:

Though the Being to whom the miracle is ascribed, be, in this case, Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions, in the usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable. As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning any other matter of fact; this must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered.


We have observed many times that human testimony is in error, but we have not observed many times miracles occurring. So we can easily say which is more likely to be the case in any particular instance. Most people, though, do not reason properly about such things, and instead go with what they want to believe. In other words, they engage in wishful thinking instead of taking a clear-eyed view of the matter and judging according to the actual evidence.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:33 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;163869 wrote:
We have observed many times that human testimony is in error, but we have not observed many times miracles occurring. So we can easily say which is more likely to be the case in any particular instance. Most people, though, do not reason properly about such things, and instead go with what they want to believe. In other words, they engage in wishful thinking instead of taking a clear-eyed view of the matter and judging according to the actual evidence.
well this just seems kind of fallacious in the sense that you are saying we have not observed miracles because the people who have observed miracles are wrong.

but your overall sentiment I can agree with to an extent..

As far as the Hume quote the only sentence I really take issue with is his last , "....and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered. ", especially the NEVER part.

If that is his opinion, then even if a real miracle were to occur it would be dismissed. This is what I was getting at with saying nothing will convince a skeptic, even his own eyes. It would also seem that repeatability is a key factor in his opinion and if that is the case fine. Take your miraculous car for example. If you do have a car that can teleport you from place to place, then maybe that is a miracle, and I'm not going to sit here and say, if you've seen it happen, that it's not, but it only effects me to the extent that I can be a part of the miracle. That's why I said that if God is a miracle worker then each miracle can be specifically and exclusively for those who are there. If your car never teleports when I'm around, that doesn't discount the fact it may still teleport, but that being the case, it becomes trivial to me personally while remaining quite important to you.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:46 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;163908 wrote:
well this just seems kind of fallacious in the sense that you are saying we have not observed miracles because the people who have observed miracles are wrong.



So you think we should believe people when they tell us stories that are known to be false? And that if we fail to do so, we are reasoning fallaciously? What, exactly, do you mean?


Amperage;163908 wrote:
but your overall sentiment I can agree with to an extent..

As far as the Hume quote the only sentence I really take issue with is his last , "....and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered. ", especially the NEVER part.



You should reread the last sentence. It is about believing based upon testimony, not on experiencing something for oneself. If you want the full measure of what Hume had to say, read this:

Online Library of Liberty - SECTION X.: of miracles. - Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals


Amperage;163908 wrote:
If that is his opinion, then even if a real miracle were to occur it would be dismissed. This is what I was getting at with saying nothing will convince a skeptic, even his own eyes. It would also seem that repeatability is a key factor in his opinion and if that is the case fine. Take your miraculous car for example. If you do have a car that can teleport you from place to place, then maybe that is a miracle, and I'm not going to sit here and say, if you've seen it happen, that it's not, but it only effects me to the extent that I can be a part of the miracle. That's why I said that if God is a miracle worker then each miracle can be specifically and exclusively for those who are there. If your car never teleports when I'm around, that doesn't discount the fact it may still teleport, but that being the case, it becomes trivial to me personally while remaining quite important to you.



I meant in that example that I teleport and therefore have no need of a car, not that I have a car that teleports me, not that that part is terribly important. Suppose I were to tell you that I teleport myself to various places, simply by willing myself to be there. Would you believe me? It is a simple and straightforward question. Upon what basis would you decide whether the story is true or not?
 
Amperage
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:52 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;163909 wrote:
Suppose I were to tell you that I teleport myself to various places, simply by willing myself to be there. Would you believe me? It is a simple and straightforward question. Upon what basis would you decide whether the story is true or not?
It depend on if I had reason to believe you were lying. If I did not, then I wouldn't discredit your experience, but would not really concern myself with it unless I was able to witness it. If I couldn't this wouldn't necessarily mean you were lying but it would be trivial to me in the sense that it wouldn't matter if you were or were not lying since it doesn't effect me in any way and I obviously cannot be a part of it.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 12:24 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;163911 wrote:
Pyrrho;163909 wrote:
Suppose I were to tell you that I teleport myself to various places, simply by willing myself to be there. Would you believe me? It is a simple and straightforward question. Upon what basis would you decide whether the story is true or not?

It depend on if I had reason to believe you were lying. If I did not, then I wouldn't discredit your experience, but would not really concern myself with it unless I was able to witness it. If I couldn't this wouldn't necessarily mean you were lying but it would be trivial to me in the sense that it wouldn't matter if you were or were not lying since it doesn't effect me in any way and I obviously cannot be a part of it.


What do you mean by, "wouldn't discredit your experience"? Are you saying that you would believe me? Or are you saying that you wouldn't believe me, but would not say so?

To get at whether you would believe the story, suppose you and kennethamy (to select someone who I think would not mind being used in this example) were to come over to my place next week to witness this miracle of mine, and suppose kennethamy today proposes a wager on whether or not I am genuine. Would you be willing to bet that I can do it? If not, doesn't that tell us that you really don't believe my story, even though you are reluctant to say so?
 
Amperage
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 12:34 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;163916 wrote:
What do you mean by, "wouldn't discredit my experience"? Are you saying that you would believe me? Or are you saying that you wouldn't believe me, but would not say so?

To get at whether you would believe the story, suppose you and kennethamy (to select someone who I think would not mind being used in this example) were to come over to my place next week to witness this miracle of mine, and suppose kennethamy today proposes a wager on whether or not I am genuine. Would you be willing to bet that I can do it? If not, doesn't that tell us that you really don't believe my story, even though you are reluctant to say so?
I just mean that my having not seen it happen doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Therefore, having not seen it myself, I would not say you are lying but would probably reply something like , "Great, but it doesn't mean anything to me."


Assuming I had no reason previously to doubt the validity of your character, it would seem, to me, to be no different than my buying a PowerBall ticket every week. A long shot.....certainty a miracle is a rare occurrence.

Speaking of which I'm starting to think the Power Ball is like The Running Man starring Arnold Schwarzenegger in that, if you recall in the movie, they tell everyone about these 3 "winners", Whitman, Price, and Haddad, when in actuality all 3 were killed. Or maybe the movie The Island starring Ewan McGregor but I digress...

The point is, my betting or not betting on you would not change the fact that your claim is a long shot.....or at least involves a rare enough occurrence to make it a tough bet even if you were my best friend. Like I said you could be telling the absolute truth and yet, it is not a repeatable thing. I wouldn't bet on a game of Russian Roulette either but that doesn't mean that I might not be chambering the empty round.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 01:09 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;163920 wrote:
I just mean that my having not seen it happen doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Therefore, having not seen it myself, I would not say you are lying but would probably reply something like , "Great, but it doesn't mean anything to me."


Assuming I had no reason previously to doubt the validity of your character, it would seem, to me, to be no different than my buying a PowerBall ticket every week. A long shot.....certainty a miracle is a rare occurrence.

Speaking of which I'm starting to think the Power Ball is like The Running Man starring Arnold Schwarzenegger in that, if you recall in the movie, they tell everyone about these 3 "winners", Whitman, Price, and Haddad, when in actuality all 3 were killed. Or maybe the movie The Island starring Ewan McGregor but I digress...

The point is, my betting or not betting on you would not change the fact that your claim is a long shot.....or at least involves a rare enough occurrence to make it a tough bet even if you were my best friend. Like I said you could be telling the absolute truth and yet, it is not a repeatable thing. I wouldn't bet on a game of Russian Roulette either but that doesn't mean that I might not be chambering the empty round.


Isn't calling it "a long shot" just another way of saying that it is probably false? In other words, you think the story is more likely false than true, and so you don't believe it.
 
Dosed
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 01:22 pm
@platorepublic,
Compared to other forums I frequent, some of the users on here are really weird. Razz
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 01:27 pm
@Dosed,
Dosed.;163931 wrote:
Compared to other forums I frequent, some of the users on here are really weird. Razz

And now we have you to add to our weirdness. Smile
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 01:48 pm
@sometime sun,
Some of us weirdos revel in our weirdness
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 10:10:53