The point was to pose the statement which was posed to me in order to get other's opinions. It is clear that you each have an opinion, for which I am grateful that you shared. I stated time after time earlier that I am only playing devil's advocate to the statement posed. I do appreciate dialogue and I have stated things which have been stated to me.

There isn't necessarily a right and a wrong answer here, merely a discussion - such is philosophy.

Sorry to upset both of you as I appear to have done. There was no end goal, just a beginning.

(December 14, 2011 at 9:23 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The point was to pose the statement which was posed to me in order to get other's opinions. It is clear that you each have an opinion, for which I am grateful that you shared.

I'd rather you actually reply to our statements (you can call them opinions all you want).

Quote:I stated time after time earlier that I am only playing devil's advocate to the statement posed.

Is that code for "I can't actually defend this proposition"?

Quote:I do appreciate dialogue and I have stated things which have been stated to me.

It seems quite worthless unless you actually reply.

Quote:There isn't necessarily a right and a wrong answer here, merely a discussion - such is philosophy.

Nonsense. Even in philosophy one can say an argument or indeed a proposition is worthless.

Quote:Sorry to upset both of you as I appear to have done. There was no end goal, just a beginning.

What makes you think you've upset anyone? We just disagree with you. Maybe you should reply to our criticism instead of just saying we're upset.

Does the term "poisoning the well" mean anything to you?

"Is that code for "I can't actually defend this proposition"?"

Yes. It isn't my position to defend. I was given this statement which I had trouble refuting, thus I posted it in here and asked for other's opinions. You can call your position any word you wish, and once again, I appreciate you sharing it. I was giving refutations simply to promote discussion, not to stir up emotions (which I seem to have done). If you disagree then that's fine, if you stated why you disagree then that's all I asked for. I'm not here to come to a conclusion, although you may be.

And no, 'poisoning the well' does not mean anything to me. What is it referring to?

If you think the topic is worthless unless it has an end goal then you can feel free to stop replying. The information you've given has been very helpful in giving me insight into the proper stance on the issue.

---

"I disagree. According to your definition all I have to do is use some observations to come to an answer. So here goes: rationality is rational because it seems to work pretty fucking well."

I now understand that you are rationally proving rationality. I'm sorry I didn't catch on to that earlier, just read it wrong. However, how can you say that it works 'pretty fucking well'? Is it because it helps us analyze the world around us and form deductive conclusions based on observations thus giving us knowledge?

Can you say that there is no other thought process which would provide us this same ability, but perhaps different deductive conclusions based on observations and giving us different knowledge? Simply a question, perhaps the answer is yes.

(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: No it's not. You can't refute the statement that it is intued by stating a justification for why it is helpful.

But I'm not giving giving a justification based on utility, I'm giving one based on tautology. The utility of reason is a consequence, not the cause, of it being the process of identification of reality.

To be clear, I'm not giving a justification of why it is useful, I'm simply giving a justification of why it is correct and by doing this I'm showing that it is not intued.

"The basic argument, as far as I can see, is that the statement "Reason is the best tool to gain knowledge" is intuitive. That means, this statement cannot be justified by reason but is known to us automatically. In effect, the author is saying "I can't explain why reason is the best way to gain knowledge, I just know it to be true". "

(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: It only falls apart if you show that it is non-intuitive, providing a reason for its usefulness does not negate the statement.

Its usefulness is the consequence of its validity. If I was justifying its validity based on its usefulness, I'd be guilty of logical fallacy called arguing from consequences. What I'm doing is showing you that since it is axiomatically or tautologically true, it is, in fact, non-intuitive.

(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Suppose it is true by definition meaning that it is true by tautology. Is tautology not intued? The point of this whole thing is to show that some things are intued to be true, and because of this intuition there is no real way to ensure ourselves that what we are doing is correct - no matter how helpful, useful, resourceful, etc.

No. Tautologies are established - not known automatically, which is what intuition means.
And there is a way to establish everything as correct without relying on intuition or judging it by its utility - By establishing that any alternative leads to an inescapable contradiction.

(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Most individuals don't know what they would do without reason, but suppose for an instant that there are other ways to think that oppose reason, and further, that when you use those other ways much more can be analyzed and thought about.

The process of thinking and analyzing requires the use of reason. And I'm not talking about random thoughts that seem to pop into your head. I'm talking about endeavor to gain knowledge. Try to do so and you'll find out why it is impossible.

(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I will repeat once again, I do believe that reason and rational thought are the best ways to approach our physical world, but when approaching a topic not within this universe, why would we use something that only applies to our reality? something that only applies to our dimensions?

Just something to think about.

Think about this. The word universe means everything that exists. The word reality contains everything that is. By definition, nothing can exist outside reality and outside the universe. That is a contradiction in terms in the same way as "the edge of the earth" or "north to north pole". And the term "our reality" is misleading, since reality does not depend on us, we are a part of reality.

---

(December 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm)Perhaps Wrote: If you feel that way then there's no need to respond further. As for the topics which do not pertain to our universe, reality, or dimensions - God could be among them.

IF god exists then he is a part of the universe and reality. The universe is everything in existence. By definition, everything that exists is a part of it.

Have christians ever came on here before and pretended not to be, in the past?

(December 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)Perhaps Wrote: From this then we have to ask how we prove tautology. The answer could be that it is intued to be true (in other words, the only way to prove that definition proves itself is to assume that that is evidence of proof.) You make an assumption - intuition.

This is where you are wrong. A tautology doesn't need to be intued. It can be proven by showing that its negation is false under all conditions.

(December 15, 2011 at 5:17 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Have christians ever came on here before and pretended not to be, in the past?

Yup.

Thank you genkaus, you've answered my question and provided plenty of explanation for why you are correct.

(December 15, 2011 at 11:15 am)frankiej Wrote:

(December 15, 2011 at 5:17 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Have christians ever came on here before and pretended not to be, in the past?

Yup.

Why, that's insidious! Sith, I tell ya, the lot of 'em.

The most infamous we had, Edward, that after a week here 'converted' to christianity and tried to show us how evil our atheistic ways are. Well, at least until he got the banhammer.