(November 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Not many people it seems to want to bring facts into their arguments, yet atheists and skeptics love facts, and thrive looking for evidence evidence? I do anyway. It seems facts aren't too useful to philosophical arguments. That said, maybe I just can't do philosophy.
That is interesting, because facts have a ton to do with philosophy. You cannot ponder possibilities well if you do not know some basic facts.
Take your earlier debate in this thread for example.
We cannot know whether god exists or not at this point because there is no infallible evidence or proof, either way.
There is loads of proof that Santa Claus is not real, at least not in the sense that he is the man in children's stories. There could have been a Santa Claus, but that Santa Claus is arguably false. Adults do not find mysterious presents for their children under the tree often enough for Santa to be considered real. There is no evidence for immortality or that sort of longevity in a human being, which Santa is. "Magic" has not been proven and we know for a fact that at least the majority of Santa stories are fiction admitted to be fiction by the very people who authored the stories.
Unfortunately, god is much more complicated than that, thank to the very storytellers and readers who believe it. None of the storytellers from the Bible would admit such a (then) politically and socially important novel was false. The sequels and fanfic arising from the first documents were just as important. You have all of the convenience of "faith" and "just knowing" to make it impossible to tell if these followers are sincere or deluded. Even if the writers of the Bible admitted they were full of shit, you will still have the very small chance they were lying about lying. Even Stephen King's stories cannot be 100% dismissed, given that he could have access to another dimension where these things and events are real and occurring that he doesn't want to tell anyone about. It is certainly more logical to dismiss the stories, but to say you know for certain it is absolutely impossible for it to be true is taking an understandable disbelief too far. So, you see, philosophical reasoning in itself is fact. It is a fact that you cannot dismiss things such as stories completely because there are too many variables.
Quote:Facts? A chimp is a primate - fact. Earth is a planet - fact. The tooth fairy is a fictional creation, as is the hobbit - fact. No arguments so far?
See above. I would go further and say that a planet is only a planet in the English language and, even translated, it is safe to assume it is only a "planet" on planet Earth. It might be a marshmallow elsewhere.
Quote:Personally speaking, and hey, I could be wrong - I feel no amount of philosophical gymnastics and arguments should be able to skirt around or oppose known facts. If we KNOW something to be true, then that should be it, end of story.
Why, so you can be self-limiting? We are not talking about hokey spiritual shit here. We are talking about the critical thinking that has created such knowledge as species categorization and recognizing the Earth as one of many celestial objects.
Quote:No I'm not talking about "theories" which can be updated on new evidence - of course we can accept a theory as true, and latterly change or update it. Or even bin it. Theory is about gaining knowledge, proving the theory and so on. Probably a bad analogy of what theory is but I'm sure most get the gist. What I'm talking about is factual knowledge, about knowing - such as we know a tree is a tree - fact. There will NEVER be evidence to prove a tree is a jellyfish. Why? Because it is a tree and we know it is a tree. Dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish is surely not suspension of critical thinking? If dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish would be a suspension of critical thinking, then I don't want to critical think!
That is different. We have categorized a tree as a plant and a jellyfish as an animal. No one is arguing that a tree is a jellyfish, though I am sure that someone will jump in with some Quantum physics and prove me wrong.
There is also the fact that truth is a matter of perception. What is true to you may be different for others. There could be some poor deluded nutcase staring out her window right now at an apple-producing jellyfish in her backyard. Quote:What I'm trying to say is there are things we can know, as fact. There are possibilities we can instantly dismiss as absurd. Not even give the possibility the time of day, even if for philosophy's sake.
Sure, there are some thoughts that are probably a waste of time. However, even simple concepts like 2+2=4 can be twisted in some way to make it so 2+2=5, I am sure. Three men and a pregnant female perhaps? It depends on how you count it.
Quote:Likewise, if I write a book about a fictional fairy, I made it up. I know I made it up and I know it is not real. My knowledge is that I know that character is fictional - and that is a errrrrr, fact (lol) I also know there is NO possibility of it being real or being found in a jungle somewhere because it's fictional. Dismissing the possibility of this fictional character being real is IMO not suspending my critical thinking. In this example situation, with the "facts" to hand the fictional to real possibiilty of the fairy seems the same as the tree to jellyfish possibiility - both beyond absurd. Even philosophy must have some limits on possibility? Otherwise what is the impossible, and why do we even have the word?
The fictional book thing is an issue because you would be the only person who ever came into contact with that book who could say without any possibility of a doubt, barring mental illness, that the book is fiction.
Now, with all of that being said, there are some things that are completely impossible, at least in this dimension, planet and part of the universe. For example, I can't lick my elbow as my anatomy stands right now.
