CliveStaples Wrote:???

It's like you aren't even paying attention.

How does the evidentialist know the outcome of those experiments? He or she must assume that her memory of them is reliable.

How does the evidentialist know that the universe didn't come into existence three seconds ago--complete with the evidentialist's memories of countless experiments?

The evidentialist, in citing that evidence, is making certain assumptions about the continuity of history and the accuracy of his or her memory. I am asking how the evidentialist justifies these assumptions.

I know my memory works because I can rip out my keyboard, smash it against my head and make every key pop out. I can then walk out of the room, remember what I have just done, walk back in and find the evidence that proves my memory was accurate and disproves your mad argument. And yes, while all of this happened time WAS TICKING meaning that the universe didn't pop into existence halfway through smashing my keyboard or even after.

Why do not not believe the past was real? If you remember my philosophical point about the present most likely not existing then what does that mean for you? That you simply don't exist????

Prove me wrong. Until then all these baseless assertions are useless.

(July 8, 2012 at 9:43 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I know my memory works because I can rip out my keyboard, smash it against my head and make every key pop out. I can then walk out of the room, remember what I have just done, walk back in and find the evidence that proves my memory was accurate and disproves your mad argument. And yes, while all of this happened time WAS TICKING meaning that the universe didn't pop into existence halfway through smashing my keyboard or even after.

You're really not even reading, are you?

"I know my memory is accurate because of my memory!"

You can't cite your memory as evidence that your memory is accurate. This is the same bullshit that theists do with the Bible.

"Oh, I can do something, then later I'll remember doing it, and this means my memory is accurate." No, it means that at some time, you'll remember having done it. How do you know that this memory is accurate?

You're just saying, "If my memory is accurate, then my memory is accurate." That is, "If I do something, and remember it accurately, then my memory of doing it is accurate." Well, no shit.

Quote:Why do not not believe the past was real? If you remember my philosophical point about the present most likely not existing then what does that mean for you? That you simply don't exist????

Prove me wrong. Until then all these baseless assertions are useless.

Stop with this bullshit. Questioning how you know p doesn't mean I think p is false.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to justify your assumptions--unless you're okay just taking things on faith, without evidence. But that wouldn't make you a very consistent evidentialist.

I love it when xtards resort to claiming they don't have to be rational. It lets me know just how desperate they really are.

(July 8, 2012 at 10:12 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 9:43 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I know my memory works because I can rip out my keyboard, smash it against my head and make every key pop out. I can then walk out of the room, remember what I have just done, walk back in and find the evidence that proves my memory was accurate and disproves your mad argument. And yes, while all of this happened time WAS TICKING meaning that the universe didn't pop into existence halfway through smashing my keyboard or even after.

You're really not even reading, are you?

"I know my memory is accurate because of my memory!"

No I said I know my memory is accurate because I can relate the broken keyboard i.e. evidence to the memory in my brain. You twisted my words.

Quote:You can't cite your memory as evidence that your memory is accurate. This is the same bullshit that theists do with the Bible.

"Oh, I can do something, then later I'll remember doing it, and this means my memory is accurate." No, it means that at some time, you'll remember having done it. How do you know that this memory is accurate?

You're just saying, "If my memory is accurate, then my memory is accurate." That is, "If I do something, and remember it accurately, then my memory of doing it is accurate." Well, no shit.



Stop with this bullshit. Questioning how you know p doesn't mean I think p is false.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to justify your assumptions--unless you're okay just taking things on faith, without evidence. But that wouldn't make you a very consistent evidentialist.

I don't have to deal with any of this intellectual dissonance. It's irrational, pointless, unevidenced wishful thinking that YOU will have to prove.

I refuse to consider any longer the laughable baseless assertion that the universe came into being just then, and that I magically wrote this without ever writing it. There is not a shred of evidence to even consider such a possibility.

You sir have a loose screw.

(July 8, 2012 at 11:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No I said I know my memory is accurate because I can relate the broken keyboard i.e. evidence to the memory in my brain. You twisted my words.

Here's your argument:

1) Break a keyboard.
2) Observe a broken keyboard.
3) Remember the features and circumstances of the keyboard you broke.
4) Compare the features and circumstances of the broken keyboard you are observing.
5) If they match up, then your memory is accurate.

Step 3 is where you assume the thing you're trying to prove. Circular reasoning.

Quote:I don't have to deal with any of this intellectual dissonance. It's irrational, pointless, unevidenced wishful thinking that YOU will have to prove.

Ah, the old shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

If you can't give evidence for your beliefs, fine. Just don't pretend that you're being intellectually consistent as an evidentialist.

Quote:I refuse to consider any longer the laughable baseless assertion that the universe came into being just then, and that I magically wrote this without ever writing it. There is not a shred of evidence to even consider such a possibility.

You sir have a loose screw.

I'm not claiming that the universe came into being just now. I'm claiming that your basis for believing that it didn't has no evidence.

Do you see the difference? I'm not saying you should reject your belief that the universe didn't just now come into existence. I'm saying that the fact that you hold this belief without evidence for it suggests that you haven't thought through the implications of evidentialism.

(July 8, 2012 at 7:44 am)CliveStaples Wrote: You're assuming that if "day" is used one way in one part, it must be used the same way in every part. This fails to distinguish between different literary styles used in the Bible.

But that's exactly my point. It's convoluted. I'm not going to try and qualify it all for you, that is obviously beyond mine and everyone else's abilities. I'm not going to try to disprove god or religion to you because I'm sure you've heard/read every argument before and still hold steadfast to faith. That is fine, but obviously your only goal here is to simply refute everything at all costs.

Clive, you never did address my point, I notice...

(July 8, 2012 at 11:20 am)KnockEmOuttt Wrote: But that's exactly my point. It's convoluted. I'm not going to try and qualify it all for you, that is obviously beyond mine and everyone else's abilities. I'm not going to try to disprove god or religion to you because I'm sure you've heard/read every argument before and still hold steadfast to faith. That is fine, but obviously your only goal here is to simply refute everything at all costs.

No, I just like thinking through things, and trying to understand the reasons why I think/believe a certain way--and why I don't think/believe a different why. And I like to see the reasons other people have. I like to ask myself, "Why should I think a thing like that?"

---

(July 8, 2012 at 11:25 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Clive, you never did address my point, I notice...

Sorry, I think I must have missed it. I'll go back and re-read.


EDIT: Is this the point you were referring to?

(July 8, 2012 at 5:21 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Because Christians love to pick and choose what they believe in their holy book. The entire New Testament is based on the understanding that the Old Testament is basically prophesy realized. Therefore you have to believe the Old Testament is fact, and therefore you can either choose to believe that Genesis is truth. Or you can pick and choose, in which case why even bother believing in any of it at all if you choose to disbelieve in only certain parts and you choose to discard others?

What Clive is trying to say is that trolls gots ta troll.

(July 8, 2012 at 11:19 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 11:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No I said I know my memory is accurate because I can relate the broken keyboard i.e. evidence to the memory in my brain. You twisted my words.

Here's your argument:

1) Break a keyboard.
2) Observe a broken keyboard.
3) Remember the features and circumstances of the keyboard you broke.
4) Compare the features and circumstances of the broken keyboard you are observing.
5) If they match up, then your memory is accurate.

Step 3 is where you assume the thing you're trying to prove. Circular reasoning.

What then, what's the explanation for the two matching up?

Quote:Ah, the old shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

If you can't give evidence for your beliefs, fine. Just don't pretend that you're being intellectually consistent as an evidentialist.

The evidence EXISTS.

Quote:I'm not claiming that the universe came into being just now. I'm claiming that your basis for believing that it didn't has no evidence.

Do you see the difference? I'm not saying you should reject your belief that the universe didn't just now come into existence. I'm saying that the fact that you hold this belief without evidence for it suggests that you haven't thought through the implications of evidentialism.

THE EVIDENCE EXISTS.