| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Steve Mading" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2005 05:37:22 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Theophobia |
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:12:54 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5b973.edp.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
Scotmc wrote
So I'm going to stand by my statement (which is an assertion):
It is correct to call ALL assertions "assertions"
whether they are "falsifiable conclusions"
[Christopher's term]
or "wild-assed guesses" or look like they might be
"default hypothesis assertions".
and you treat them roughly the same way.
(where "treat them" is as described above).
Do you think THAT is 'deliberately deceptive'?
I do not.
Then we disagree. Unless, of course, you heap the same level of
contempt on people who assert leprechauns or santa claus doesn't
exist as you do on people who assert god doesn't exist. In which
case I'd consider you a looney, but at least a fair and consistent
one.
You have see "heaping contempt" huh? Obviously you are talking
about the ongoing spat with Christopher Lee that you have
taken up. I don't want to take up that discusion here because
we are having in another part of this thread. But since you
bring it up, I'll talk about the honesty and/or "heaping contempt"
in our discussions.
First of all, let me say this: I don't heap contempt on people
who assert the biblical g/God doesn't exist. I actually AGREE
with people who assert the biblical God doesn't exist.
But in the discussion with Christopher, I honestly believe
I have spotted an error in *what he has written*. I
emphasized the *what he has written* just now because I
don't think it actually represents his position. I think he means
"He doesn't apply 'God' as a premise, at all, ever" and I actually
have a huge problem with that position. I don't apply 'God' as
a premise [in my life] but I do apply 'God' as a premise in
discussions of whether God exists.
Then it is you who are not correctly saying what you mean.
The only way you can "apply god as a premise in discussions
of whether god exists" is to do so as a tautology. If god
existing is the conclusion being debated, then god cannot
be a premise of that without generating a tautology. If you
are an atheist, then god cannot be a premise. Once it's a
premise then you tautologically cannot escape it as a
conclusion.
So if that's not what you're thinking, then YOU are the one
guilty of writing things that don't match what you're thinking.
But I honestly think his
words " 'God' as a premise does not apply to me" doesn't
say that same thing. So I have tried to show (and tried to
be politely actually) what I think *his words* actually mean.
[And again, I emphasize that I'm critical of *his words* and
not critical of his position because, as I see it, they actually
differ.]
I try hard to make my posts clear. So I find it extremely
frustrating that someone else cannot see what I think I am
making extremely clear. What you are seeing as "heaping
contempt" is, in my opinion, my mounting frustration that is
being aggravated by his name calling.
I'll admit that I have sworn at Christopher. And I admit
that it is not much of a justification to say this but
"He started it!"
However, I submit that I am the one who tries to bring the
discussion back to the issue and he is the one who
tries to 'heap the contempt'.
And frankly, Mr. Mading, I have detected a little comtempt
coming from your general direction.
True. And it was quite heartfelt.
I believe you accusing
me of "deliberate deception" was off base.
I apologise for that. Maybe it wasn't deliberate. But I
still say it's deceptive, but maybe you are decieving yourself
as well as others. You are drawing a distinction that does
not exist when you say that a person can claim that a premise
they don't believe in applies to them. If they believe it
applies to them that that means they believe it.
But we are
still discussing the issue (mostly politely) and so it goes on.
.
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 01:26:50 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5c5nt.eod.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:12:54 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
I think he means
"He doesn't apply 'God' as a premise, at all, ever" and I actually
have a huge problem with that position. I don't apply 'God' as
a premise [in my life] but I do apply 'God' as a premise in
discussions of whether God exists.
Then it is you who are not correctly saying what you mean.
The only way you can "apply god as a premise in discussions
of whether god exists" is to do so as a tautology. If god
existing is the conclusion being debated, then god cannot
be a premise of that without generating a tautology.
Okay... I was taught in philosophy that a premise must
be a proposition. (ie. A statement such as "God exists".)
And, whereever possible I have tried to stick to that.
But, Christopher uses a more relaxed definition of "premise".
For Christopher a "premise" is anything that you use as
a starting point. In this case, "premise" is the the concept
of "God". I WANT to discuss whether God [the theist's
concept] exists in REALITY. In order to correctly discuss
whether the theist's God exists, I have to start off with
the theist's concept. But that "premise" is not the
proposition "God exists" it is only a concept to discuss.
If you
are an atheist, then god cannot be a premise. Once it's a
premise then you tautologically cannot escape it as a
conclusion.
This depends on what you are calling a "premise". If you
are saying that a premise must be a proposition and that
proposition is "God exists" then actually I would agree with
you. If the only way to discuss whether "God exists" was
to first assume "God exists" then you would caught in a circle.
Christopher on the other hand, doesn't use "the theists
starting point for what God is" because, as he says "that
would be granting the theist's premise outside of their religion".
The "premise" that Christopher uses (ie. his referent for God)
is "God is something from someone else's religion".
So, in my opinion, he is defining the question "Does God
exist?" out of existence. And he says himself that the question
"Does God exist?" CANNOT arise.
So if that's not what you're thinking, then YOU are the one
guilty of writing things that don't match what you're thinking.
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
You are drawing a distinction that does
not exist when you say that a person can claim that a premise
they don't believe in applies to them. If they believe it
applies to them that that means they believe it.
I say the distinction exists and is quite important.
Strictly speaking I'm saying that if the particular premise
(proposition "God exists") were TRUE then it WOULD apply
to them and their world. And, if the particular premise
is false then... well it is still a statement "about reality" but
if it happens to be false so you really cannot say
that is "applies" to anyone.
So, I'm drawing the distinction between "Is not applied by"
and "does not apply to". And if you prove me wrong I will
publicly (on alt.atheism) apologise to both you and
Christopher for wasting your time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 05:28:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:26:50 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5c5nt.eod.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:12:54 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
I think he means
"He doesn't apply 'God' as a premise, at all, ever" and I actually
have a huge problem with that position. I don't apply 'God' as
a premise [in my life] but I do apply 'God' as a premise in
discussions of whether God exists.
Then it is you who are not correctly saying what you mean.
The only way you can "apply god as a premise in discussions
of whether god exists" is to do so as a tautology. If god
existing is the conclusion being debated, then god cannot
be a premise of that without generating a tautology.
Okay... I was taught in philosophy that a premise must
be a proposition. (ie. A statement such as "God exists".)
And, whereever possible I have tried to stick to that.
But, Christopher uses a more relaxed definition of "premise".
For Christopher a "premise" is anything that you use as
a starting point. In this case, "premise" is the the concept
of "God". I WANT to discuss whether God [the theist's
concept] exists in REALITY. In order to correctly discuss
whether the theist's God exists, I have to start off with
the theist's concept. But that "premise" is not the
proposition "God exists" it is only a concept to discuss.
If you
are an atheist, then god cannot be a premise. Once it's a
premise then you tautologically cannot escape it as a
conclusion.
This depends on what you are calling a "premise". If you
are saying that a premise must be a proposition and that
proposition is "God exists" then actually I would agree with
you. If the only way to discuss whether "God exists" was
to first assume "God exists" then you would caught in a circle.
Christopher on the other hand, doesn't use "the theists
starting point for what God is" because, as he says "that
would be granting the theist's premise outside of their religion".
The "premise" that Christopher uses (ie. his referent for God)
is "God is something from someone else's religion".
So, in my opinion, he is defining the question "Does God
exist?" out of existence. And he says himself that the question
"Does God exist?" CANNOT arise.
The word you are looking for is "definition", not "premise".
Yes, to discuss if god exists you need a *definition* of god.
You do not need a premise of god - not unless you are trying
to use the argument pattern of hypothetically assuming it's
true and seeing what the logical outcome would be in that case.
But that's not the only type of argument that can be formed.
It is, however, the only one that would fit the term "premise"
that an atheist could use and not be self-contradictory.
And you can't shove off this as being Christopher's fault for
using the terms that way when you chose to use them that way
yourself.
So if that's not what you're thinking, then YOU are the one
guilty of writing things that don't match what you're thinking.
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
You are drawing a distinction that does
not exist when you say that a person can claim that a premise
they don't believe in applies to them. If they believe it
applies to them that that means they believe it.
I say the distinction exists and is quite important.
Strictly speaking I'm saying that if the particular premise
(proposition "God exists") were TRUE then it WOULD apply
to them and their world. And, if the particular premise
is false then... well it is still a statement "about reality" but
if it happens to be false so you really cannot say
that is "applies" to anyone.
So, I'm drawing the distinction between "Is not applied by"
and "does not apply to". And if you prove me wrong I will
publicly (on alt.atheism) apologise to both you and
Christopher for wasting your time.
This part is rendered irrelevant by the difference in terminlogy
discussed above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 01:51:27 AM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5dfcm.fdm.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:26:50 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5c5nt.eod.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:12:54 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
Christopher on the other hand, doesn't use "the theists
starting point for what God is" because, as he says "that
would be granting the theist's premise outside of their religion".
The "premise" that Christopher uses (ie. his referent for God)
is "God is something from someone else's religion".
So, in my opinion, he is defining the question "Does God
exist?" out of existence. And he says himself that the question
"Does God exist?" CANNOT arise.
Steve Mading wrote:
The word you are looking for is "definition", not "premise".
Yes, to discuss if god exists you need a *definition* of god.
You do not need a premise of god - not unless you are trying
to use the argument pattern of hypothetically assuming it's
true and seeing what the logical outcome would be in that case.
But that's not the only type of argument that can be formed.
It is, however, the only one that would fit the term "premise"
that an atheist could use and not be self-contradictory.
Then it would appear we agree on two things:
(1) I shouldn't have used Christopher's term "premise" when
the word I should have been using was "definition".
(2) Christopher's definition of God defines the question
"Does God exist?" out of existence.
And you can't shove off this as being Christopher's fault for
using the terms that way when you chose to use them that way
yourself.
Again you are right. I agree. But during LONG conversations
with Christopher I started using "premise" his way to facilitate
conversations with him. Only by adopting his use of language
have I been able to figure out what he has been saying (assuming
that I actually have figured it out). But I'll gladly stop using the
word "premise" the way Christopher uses it, and I'll gladly let
you tell Christopher that his usage is wrong at your leisure.
You are drawing a distinction that does
not exist when you say that a person can claim that a premise
they don't believe in applies to them. If they believe it
applies to them that that means they believe it.
This topic is already under discussion in that other part
of the thread. Here are links to two posts I have made
on the topic.
In news:d6m5e.373$8m3.39@fe11.lga I present an
example which shows the "domain of a statement" is not
the same as "the group who believes it is true".
In news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga I present my
refutation of your argument that
If the statement "X is true" and the statement
"I believe X is true" actually say the same exact thing
then the statements "I do not apply the premise" and
"The premise does not apply to me" also say the
same exact thing.
Please answer those posts.
But while we are here, maybe there is something
else we can agree on. Would you say
"the domain of a statement"
is the same thing as
"who/what/where that statement applies to" ?
I would say they are the same. The "domain of
a statement" might be more precise terminology but
expresses the same thing as "who/what/where
that statement applies to".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
13 Apr 2005 12:22:38 PM |
|
|
"Scotmc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:vyG5e.517$Vy7.157@fe09.lga...
In news:d6m5e.373$8m3.39@fe11.lga I present an
example which shows the "domain of a statement" is not
the same as "the group who believes it is true".
In news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga I present my
refutation of your argument that
If the statement "X is true" and the statement
"I believe X is true" actually say the same exact thing
then the statements "I do not apply the premise" and
"The premise does not apply to me" also say the
same exact thing.
Please answer those posts.
But while we are here, maybe there is something
else we can agree on. Would you say
"the domain of a statement"
is the same thing as
"who/what/where that statement applies to" ?
I would say they are the same. The "domain of
a statement" might be more precise terminology but
expresses the same thing as "who/what/where
that statement applies to".
It has now been several days. Steve, you have responded
to another post of mine but not to these posts. Should I
take that as a sign that you agree with what I have written?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
13 Apr 2005 07:19:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:22:38 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Scotmc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:vyG5e.517$Vy7.157@fe09.lga...
In news:d6m5e.373$8m3.39@fe11.lga I present an
example which shows the "domain of a statement" is not
the same as "the group who believes it is true".
In news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga I present my
refutation of your argument that
If the statement "X is true" and the statement
"I believe X is true" actually say the same exact thing
then the statements "I do not apply the premise" and
"The premise does not apply to me" also say the
same exact thing.
Correct. In both cases the person speaking is saying
"I don't agree with the premise, so I don't want to use it."
Nobody thinks a premise applies to himself without first
thinking the premise is true.
Please answer those posts.
Please provide enough context for me to figure out which posts
you're talking about. I remember my post, but not your
response to it that you claim is unanswered. I don't
see every post in talk.atheism. I just don't have the time
to read all of them. I try to catch all the ones that are
replies to me but I sometimes don't see them (and then
when I catchup the group it deletes the ones I didn't find.)
But while we are here, maybe there is something
else we can agree on. Would you say
"the domain of a statement"
is the same thing as
"who/what/where that statement applies to" ?
I would say they are the same. The "domain of
a statement" might be more precise terminology but
expresses the same thing as "who/what/where
that statement applies to".
If you want to make up some term called the "domain
of a statement" and give it that meaning, sure. Keep
in mind then, that one could rephrase "I don't believe
this premise" as "As far as I can tell, the domain of
this premise seems to be the null set."
Thus it still makes no sense to tell someone to apply
a premise to himself that he doesn't agree with.
It has now been several days. Steve, you have responded
to another post of mine but not to these posts. Should I
take that as a sign that you agree with what I have written?
If silence always meant agreement then no discussion would ever
end until everyone in the world agreed on every point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
13 Apr 2005 09:51:27 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5qrov.skr.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:22:38 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Scotmc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:vyG5e.517$Vy7.157@fe09.lga...
In news:d6m5e.373$8m3.39@fe11.lga I present an
example which shows the "domain of a statement" is not
the same as "the group who believes it is true".
In news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga I present my
refutation of your argument that
If the statement "X is true" and the statement
"I believe X is true" actually say the same exact thing
then the statements "I do not apply the premise" and
"The premise does not apply to me" also say the
same exact thing.
Please answer those posts.
Please provide enough context for me to figure out which posts
you're talking about.
Did you see that part where it says
"news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga" That is
a link. In MS Outlook Express the link is automatically
highlighted and if you click on it, it takes you
right to the post.
If you can't reach the posts that way let me know and I'll repost
the argument here.
But while we are here, maybe there is something
else we can agree on. Would you say
"the domain of a statement"
is the same thing as
"who/what/where that statement applies to" ?
I would say they are the same. The "domain of
a statement" might be more precise terminology but
expresses the same thing as "who/what/where
that statement applies to".
If you want to make up some term called the "domain
of a statement" and give it that meaning, sure. Keep
in mind then, that one could rephrase "I don't believe
this premise" as "As far as I can tell, the domain of
this premise seems to be the null set."
Thus it still makes no sense to tell someone to apply
a premise to himself that he doesn't agree with.
Have a look at
news:d6m5e.373$8m3.39@fe11.lga
If you can't reach the post through the link and I'll repost
the argument here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 12:07:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:51:27 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5qrov.skr.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:22:38 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Scotmc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:vyG5e.517$Vy7.157@fe09.lga...
In news:d6m5e.373$8m3.39@fe11.lga I present an
example which shows the "domain of a statement" is not
the same as "the group who believes it is true".
In news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga I present my
refutation of your argument that
If the statement "X is true" and the statement
"I believe X is true" actually say the same exact thing
then the statements "I do not apply the premise" and
"The premise does not apply to me" also say the
same exact thing.
Please answer those posts.
Please provide enough context for me to figure out which posts
you're talking about.
Did you see that part where it says
"news:Ivt5e.559$4u7.493@fe09.lga" That is
a link. In MS Outlook Express the link is automatically
highlighted and if you click on it, it takes you
right to the post.
If you can't reach the posts that way let me know and I'll repost
the argument here.
I don't use MS software, but what I have has a similar feature.
But my upstream news server doesn't hold articles in busy groups
for very long. That message has expired and is now gone.
But using the ID I did find it through google news.
Was this it:
google:news:slrnd5b8qr.edp.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
google:
google:> It is redundant to insert "I believe" before saying
google:> something. If I say "X is true" and I say "I believe
google:> X is true", I'm saying the same exact thing, really.
google:> Therefore if someone says "that premise is not applied
google:> by me" then that person IS ALSO saying that he believes
google:> the premise doesn't apply to him.
google: Your assertion is the statement "X is true" is equivalent
google: to "I believe X". And I agree.
google: Your statement in the 'X is true' form is "That premise is not
google: applied by me."
google: To make the equivalent statement in the form of "I believe X"
google: the statement would have to be "I believe that premise is not
google: applied by me".
google: Therefore, your argument doesn't prove the statement
google: "The premise doesn't apply to me" to be equivalent.
The link you don't seem to get, that I implicitly assumed everyone
understood, is this:
"That premise is not applied by me"
is equal to
"I don't believe that premise"
The only way that someone could possibly appliy a premise
TO themself that they don't believe (is not applied BY
themself), is to engage in Orwellian doublethink.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 01:44:47 AM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5rclc.too.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:51:27 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
google:news:slrnd5b8qr.edp.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
google:
google:> It is redundant to insert "I believe" before saying
google:> something. If I say "X is true" and I say "I believe
google:> X is true", I'm saying the same exact thing, really.
google:> Therefore if someone says "that premise is not applied
google:> by me" then that person IS ALSO saying that he believes
google:> the premise doesn't apply to him.
google: Your assertion is the statement "X is true" is equivalent
google: to "I believe X". And I agree.
google: Your statement in the 'X is true' form is "That premise is not
google: applied by me."
google: To make the equivalent statement in the form of "I believe X"
google: the statement would have to be "I believe that premise is not
google: applied by me".
google: Therefore, your argument doesn't prove the statement
google: "The premise doesn't apply to me" to be equivalent.
The link you don't seem to get, that I implicitly assumed everyone
understood, is this:
"That premise is not applied by me"
is equal to
"I don't believe that premise"
I agree. Those two are close enough to
being the same and you could treat them
as equivalent.
The only way that someone could possibly appliy a premise
TO themself that they don't believe (is not applied BY
themself), is to engage in Orwellian doublethink.
I'm not talking about whether someone applies
a premise TO THEMSELVES. I'm talking about
whether a premise applies TO someone (from an
outside source).
In a recent post Christopher wrote:
I AM OUTSIDE THE GROUP THAT USES "GOD"
AS A STARTING POINT.
Well THIS is a clear statement. And I would argue
that since Christopher meant that then he should have
written that.
But he usually doesn't write that. He usually writes:
" 'God' doesn't apply outside the theistic domain"
" 'God' doesn't apply to me"
and "only as a logical starting point regardless
of their actual truth value."
Let's work with that "regardless of their actual
truth value". Let's assume for a second that it
is TRUE (to be fair we will assume it is false later)
So.. assuming:
"God is supreme ruler" and "God exists"
and "God will judge all people after death".
Could that *apply to* Christopher? Yes. God
would judge all people and would judge Christopher.
That is how the existence of God could *apply to*
Christopher. The "theistic domain" (ie. the
domain of GOD) is the WHOLE FRIKKIN' UNIVERSE.
(Now let's assume it is all false)
If it is all false then:
"God exists" is still a statement ABOUT the
universe. The DOMAIN is STILL the whole
frikkin' universe but it simply happens to be a
false statement about the universe. The
DOMAIN is still the universe but you could
say that the statement doesn't APPLY TO
anyone, because it is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 05:32:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:44:47 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5rclc.too.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:51:27 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
google:news:slrnd5b8qr.edp.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
google:
google:> It is redundant to insert "I believe" before saying
google:> something. If I say "X is true" and I say "I believe
google:> X is true", I'm saying the same exact thing, really.
google:> Therefore if someone says "that premise is not applied
google:> by me" then that person IS ALSO saying that he believes
google:> the premise doesn't apply to him.
google: Your assertion is the statement "X is true" is equivalent
google: to "I believe X". And I agree.
google: Your statement in the 'X is true' form is "That premise is not
google: applied by me."
google: To make the equivalent statement in the form of "I believe X"
google: the statement would have to be "I believe that premise is not
google: applied by me".
google: Therefore, your argument doesn't prove the statement
google: "The premise doesn't apply to me" to be equivalent.
The link you don't seem to get, that I implicitly assumed everyone
understood, is this:
"That premise is not applied by me"
is equal to
"I don't believe that premise"
I agree. Those two are close enough to
being the same and you could treat them
as equivalent.
The only way that someone could possibly appliy a premise
TO themself that they don't believe (is not applied BY
themself), is to engage in Orwellian doublethink.
I'm not talking about whether someone applies
a premise TO THEMSELVES. I'm talking about
whether a premise applies TO someone (from an
outside source).
In a recent post Christopher wrote:
I AM OUTSIDE THE GROUP THAT USES "GOD"
AS A STARTING POINT.
Well THIS is a clear statement. And I would argue
that since Christopher meant that then he should have
written that.
But he usually doesn't write that. He usually writes:
" 'God' doesn't apply outside the theistic domain"
" 'God' doesn't apply to me"
and "only as a logical starting point regardless
of their actual truth value."
Let's work with that "regardless of their actual
truth value". Let's assume for a second that it
is TRUE (to be fair we will assume it is false later)
So.. assuming:
The word you are looking for is "hypothetical". I already addressed
that point in a post long ago when I said that the only way it
makes sense for someone who does not apply a premise, to talk of
the premise appliying to themselves, is in a hyopthetical way.
You didn't respond to that, and kept on using the terminology that
doesn't differentiate between asking someone to hypothetically
apply a premise to themselves and asking someone to actually apply
a premise to themselves.
This renders everything else you said moot. If you're talking
about accepting a premise only hypothetically for the sake of
discussion, then you could save a lot of headache by actually
SAYING SO.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 06:38:17 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5t9rt.uq2.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The word you are looking for is "hypothetical". I already addressed
that point in a post long ago when I said that the only way it
makes sense for someone who does not apply a premise, to talk of
the premise appliying to themselves, is in a hyopthetical way.
You didn't respond to that, and kept on using the terminology that
doesn't differentiate between asking someone to hypothetically
apply a premise to themselves and asking someone to actually apply
a premise to themselves.
The terminology being used (ie. "domains", "applies to") was
brought up by Christopher. I have been trying to explain what
that terminology means when taken literally and precisely.
This renders everything else you said moot. If you're talking
about accepting a premise only hypothetically for the sake of
discussion, then you could save a lot of headache by actually
SAYING SO.
I am talking about hypothetically accepting a premise for the
purpose of determining where that premise APPLIES, and
whether it applies to a separate "logical domain" [Christopher's term]
and whether Christopher is "outside of that domain" [Christopher's
term]
So then.... *hypothetically* speaking:
====================================================
(1) "The Starship Enterprise can propel itself up to Warp Factor 9"
Where does that *apply*?
Even *hypothetically* speaking, it applies only to Star Trek. The
domain is Star Trek. Our reality is "separate from" or "outside of"
that domain.
(2) "The Starship Enterprise can propel itself up to Warp Factor 15"
Where does that *apply*?
This also applies to Star Trek. The domain is Star Trek. But, IIRC
the Enterprise cannot propel itself that fast. So it is still a statement
about the domain of "Star Trek" but it is a false statement.
====================================================
(3) "Trees exist"
Where does that *apply*?
It applies to reality. The statement is not about a book or movie, or
separate "logical domain". The statement is about reality. The domain
is reality.
====================================================
(4) "God exists"
Where does that *apply*?
It applies to reality. The statement is about reality. The statement
is not about a book or movie or separate "logical domain". The domain
is reality.
However, I believe it is a false statement but it is still a statement
about the domain of reality. Christopher lives in that domain and
is not "outside reality".
======================================================
Can we now consider the matter closed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 08:28:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:17 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5t9rt.uq2.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The word you are looking for is "hypothetical". I already addressed
that point in a post long ago when I said that the only way it
makes sense for someone who does not apply a premise, to talk of
the premise appliying to themselves, is in a hyopthetical way.
You didn't respond to that, and kept on using the terminology that
doesn't differentiate between asking someone to hypothetically
apply a premise to themselves and asking someone to actually apply
a premise to themselves.
The terminology being used (ie. "domains", "applies to") was
brought up by Christopher. I have been trying to explain what
that terminology means when taken literally and precisely.
Yes. That's what you've been TRYING to do. I don't agree
that your interpretation is precise or literal, for reasons
already stated in past e-mails.
[snip the repeated same argument told a different way]
Can we now consider the matter closed?
No.
But we can admit that the matter never will be closed because
we won't agree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 09:05:01 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5tk6i.v8e.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:17 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5t9rt.uq2.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The word you are looking for is "hypothetical". I already addressed
that point in a post long ago when I said that the only way it
makes sense for someone who does not apply a premise, to talk of
the premise appliying to themselves, is in a hyopthetical way.
You didn't respond to that, and kept on using the terminology that
doesn't differentiate between asking someone to hypothetically
apply a premise to themselves and asking someone to actually apply
a premise to themselves.
The terminology being used (ie. "domains", "applies to") was
brought up by Christopher. I have been trying to explain what
that terminology means when taken literally and precisely.
Yes. That's what you've been TRYING to do. I don't agree
that your interpretation is precise or literal, for reasons
already stated in past e-mails.
[snip the repeated same argument told a different way]
You snipped out my argument. You didn't respond to anything I
wrote. Thanks. that was sweet of you. But will you answer
a question about it now? Does the proposition "Trees
exist" apply to reality? And if it applies to reality then does
"God exists" also apply to reality?
In your previous post you wrote
The only way that someone could possibly appliy a premise
TO themself that they don't believe (is not applied BY
themself), is to engage in Orwellian doublethink.
The thinking in this post indicates that the "someone" is
the only one doing the "applying". Your thinking seems to be
locked that way. But some things "apply" from an external
source. For example All redheads have firey hot tempers
That statement APPLIES TO people with red hair.
It is being *applied by* an external source.
And similarly, if "God exists" (hypothetically) then that
proposition APPLIES TO reality and APPLIES TO all people
who live in reality whether they like it, or realize it, or not.
Can we now consider the matter closed?
No.
But we can admit that the matter never will be closed because
we won't agree.
If you convince me that my usage of words is incorrect then I will
agree and I will apologize on alt.atheism and talk.atheism to
both you and Christopher for wasting your time. But are you
actually interested in coming to agreement, or interested only in
disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
14 Apr 2005 09:33:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:05:01 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5tk6i.v8e.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:17 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5t9rt.uq2.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The word you are looking for is "hypothetical". I already addressed
that point in a post long ago when I said that the only way it
makes sense for someone who does not apply a premise, to talk of
the premise appliying to themselves, is in a hyopthetical way.
You didn't respond to that, and kept on using the terminology that
doesn't differentiate between asking someone to hypothetically
apply a premise to themselves and asking someone to actually apply
a premise to themselves.
The terminology being used (ie. "domains", "applies to") was
brought up by Christopher. I have been trying to explain what
that terminology means when taken literally and precisely.
Yes. That's what you've been TRYING to do. I don't agree
that your interpretation is precise or literal, for reasons
already stated in past e-mails.
[snip the repeated same argument told a different way]
You snipped out my argument. You didn't respond to anything I
wrote. Thanks. that was sweet of you. But will you answer
a question about it now?
I'm sick and tired of repeating myself.
I didn't respond because your point was the same as what
you already said before - so my reply wouldn't be any different.
Here's a free clue - if you just repeat the same argument
that failed to convince me the first time, it will also
fail to convince me the second, third, and tenth time.
And I won't convince you either because I can't find any other
way to say what I've already said in response to what you've
already said in response to what I've already said in response
to what you've already said, and so on.
Drop it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
15 Apr 2005 01:07:27 AM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5to0g.vbu.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
Here's a free clue - if you just repeat the same argument
that failed to convince me the first time, it will also
fail to convince me the second, third, and tenth time.
Well said.
And I won't convince you either because I can't find any other
way to say what I've already said in response to what you've
already said in response to what I've already said in response
to what you've already said, and so on.
Drop it.
Just a quick recap, and then I'll drop it.
I promise I will try to state the issues fairly. I won't attempt to do any
convincing and I won't make any snotty comments.
Here are the issues that I remember:
(1) Christopher and I disagreed on the usage of the word "premise".
You, Steve Mading, have made your opinion known on this issue.
(2) Whether the statement "I believe X is true" says the
same thing as simply saying "X is true". Christopher and I
disagree on this issue. You have made your opinion known
on this issue.
(3) Christopher defines "God" as "something from somebody
else's religion". So when Christopher looks at the question
"Does God exist?" he filters it through his definitions and
it become "Does God [something from somebody
else's religion] exist [in reality]?" And thus he says the question
is ridiculous and CANNOT arise. Christopher has confirmed
himself that this as EXACTLY his position. I disagree with
using his definition in a discussion of "Does God exist?"
You, Steve Mading, have not commented directly on this
issue.
(4) Finally we have a disagreement on what a "domain" is
and what the phrase "applies to" means. When I became
involved in this thread (Theophobia) I wrote
Take a piece of paper and label it "reality" at the top.
Now draw several circles with some circles overlapping.
The circles represent "theistic beliefs" or "religions".
Because some religions contain similar beliefs some
of the circles overlap. Now draw a little stick man OUTSIDE
of all these circles. That stick man is Christopher OUTSIDE
of all those domains of theistic belief.
Now, Christopher would say that the the God belief applies
INSIDE one/some of those circles. I suppose you could draw
a star or a cross inside of several circles. But with
Christopher being OUTSIDE of the circles those beliefs do
not "apply to him".
Outside of the circles, you have NO God concept. Nothing to
even ask "does it exist?"
And the same goes for Santa Claus. Santa would exist only
inside a circle and outside of that circle Santa would not apply
at all. Nothing to even ask "does it exist?"
And the same goes for Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship
Enterprise. The question of "Does Kirk exist?" CANNOT
arise outside of the domain of "Star Trek".
So please note that in the above I tried only to repeat Christopher's
words accurately. I did not evaluate Christopher's position and I'm
not going to evaluate it now. But I think it is fair to say that those
words
mean something entirely different to Nico Demusopelous and
me, Scotmc than what those words mean to Christopher Lee,
and Steve Mading.
So... that is my recap of the long term discussions with Christopher
and Steve Mading. I didn't try to convince anyone and I didn't make
any snotty remarks. At this point, I'll glady agree to disagree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
15 Apr 2005 05:25:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:07:27 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
So... that is my recap of the long term discussions with Christopher
and Steve Mading. I didn't try to convince anyone and I didn't make
any snotty remarks. At this point, I'll glady agree to disagree.
Agreed - except your recap was wrong. You claimed I didn't
reply to points which I *DID* reply to - I replied by showing
the connection to points already covered, and saying that I
considered them identical to points already covered. You
can disagree with my claim that they are identical. But even if
you do, My doing so still counts as a direct reply so stop
claiming I never gave one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
15 Apr 2005 08:18:14 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5vtqa.r0.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:07:27 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
So... that is my recap of the long term discussions with Christopher
and Steve Mading. I didn't try to convince anyone and I didn't make
any snotty remarks. At this point, I'll glady agree to disagree.
Agreed - except your recap was wrong. You claimed I didn't
reply to points which I *DID* reply to - I replied by showing
the connection to points already covered, and saying that I
considered them identical to points already covered. You
can disagree with my claim that they are identical. But even if
you do, My doing so still counts as a direct reply so stop
claiming I never gave one.
You're right. I have reviewed the thread and you DID respond
to what I listed as issue (3). (That was the only issue where I
said you didn't respond.) The response that you DID make
indicates that you agree with me on the first three out of the
four issues.
Now, would you like to finish off issue (4)? I actually have
something new to say about the word "domain" but if you
want to drop it altogether I will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
18 Apr 2005 06:00:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:18:14 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5vtqa.r0.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:07:27 -0400,
Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
So... that is my recap of the long term discussions with Christopher
and Steve Mading. I didn't try to convince anyone and I didn't make
any snotty remarks. At this point, I'll glady agree to disagree. >> >> Agreed - except your recap was wrong. You claimed I didn't
reply to points which I *DID* reply to - I replied by showing
the connection to points already covered, and saying that I
considered them identical to points already covered. You
can disagree with my claim that they are identical. But even if
you do, My doing so still counts as a direct reply so stop
claiming I never gave one.
You're right. I have reviewed the thread and you DID respond
to what I listed as issue (3). (That was the only issue where I
said you didn't respond.) The response that you DID make
indicates that you agree with me on the first three out of the
four issues.
Now, would you like to finish off issue (4)? I actually have
something new to say about the word "domain" but if you
want to drop it altogether I will.
Point 4 was an uninteresting rephrasing of the same thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
