Kokesh on Atheism + Libertarians

[WilliamC]

All of ya'll need to refer back to post #35, it's all covered there.

Freedom brings us together, even if we're all batsh!t crazy enough to argue about things that have nothing to do with helping Ron Paul get elected

Carry on!

 

[BrittanySligar]

SIGH.
If one wishes to play the 'logic' game, then one must conclude that either:
A) God exists
or
B) Nothing exists.
Personally, I agree with Aquinas; that nothing exists, because God does not exist. Frankly, logic is an inherently flawed system.

Even if there were no human intellects, things could be said to be true because of their relation to the divine intellect. But if, by an impossible supposition [per impossibile], intellect did not exist and things did continue to exist, then the essentials of truth would in no way remain.

I'd love to see the line of reasoning which leads definitively to only those two conclusions lol.. your condescension is eminent.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You are taking every question and turning it into a discussion about the nature of knowledge. You are avoiding the subject at hand. If you just plan on continuing, we can end the discussion, and you can go back to your life of not considering anything, because after all, we can't know anything. You will not debate anything, you will not observe anything, you will not know anyone, and you will not see anything. Because, after all, you know that nothing is knowable.

Let's put the discussion about the nature of what is knowable aside, as it is not pertinent to the subject matter.

How can the state of "believing" something be the default position? By claiming something other than atheism is the default position, you must provide your reasoning.

Also, you have still yet to articulate your religious views.

Okay...

You make the assertion that nothing is known past "material phenomena". Then you say the way you know "material phenomena" is by sensation?

How do you know this? How can you ever test your sensation of "the material phenomena" against the "real world"? By another one of your sensations? But then how do you ever get past your sensations to the real world???

How do you know that nothing can be known past "material phenomena"? Did you sense that it was unknowable? How can you do that?



If you think I'm going to let you get away from these insane assertions, you're nuts. JUSTIFY what you are saying. Prove it. Make some arguments here. Why would anyone take you seriously if you just assert a bunch of things without arguments or showing it?

 

[otherone]

I'd love to see the line of reasoning which leads definitively to only those two conclusions lol.. your condescension is eminent.

Actually, my condescension is not eminent at all. I pretty much agree with you. You've been avoiding AquaBuddha's questions, he's more than capable of leading you down the 'logic' path to prove to you the inevitability of a creator. He's a Calvinist, btw. I've been in your shoes already with him, but was not as bold as you as to admit the presence of absolute truth.

 

[Deborah K]

The only way I can logically think the universe came into existence is if the universe always existed and was not created by anyone. The only rule of the universe is zero=infinity. In infinity, there is no beginning or end, and therefore no creator. We know that there is no way to create something from absolutely nothing. So the only way for us to exist is if everything equals nothing.

Please explain to me how God created the universe out of nothing. Please show me how there is logic to God.

It seems that we humans are limited in our thinking about the Universe. Just about everything known to us has a beginning and an ending, so we can't seem to comprehend that the Universe doesn't work that way. The big bang doesn't even make sense because no one knows from where the components that supposedly caused it came. The Universe has no end or beginning, it is cyclical. So is our life on this planet. Everything about us is cyclical - including the atoms that make us.

As to life being created? I think that both creation and evolution play and have played a role on this planet.

And to add to the above, I believe that God is the Universe. The Bible makes reference to 'God is, was, and always will be.....' No beginning....no end.

 

[BrittanySligar]

Okay...

You make the assertion that nothing is known past "material phenomena". Then you say the way you know "material phenomena" is by sensation?

How do you know this? How can you ever test your sensation of "the material phenomena" against the "real world"? By another one of your sensations? But then how do you ever get past your sensations to the real world???

How do you know that nothing can be known past "material phenomena"? Did you sense that it was unknowable? How can you do that?



If you think I'm going to let you get away from these insane assertions, you're nuts. JUSTIFY what you are saying. Prove it. Make some arguments here. Why would anyone take you seriously if you just assert a bunch of things without arguments or showing it?

Ok then. We can't know anything, because our senses are separate from the input that it receives. Where the hell does that get us? Is that a pragmatic position to defer to in every conceivable debate?

Also, it's quite ironic that you bring this up, as you seem to conclude agnosticism. Not sure how Calvinism arises from the position that "nothing is knowable". That is the very definition of agnosticism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ok then. We can't know anything, because our senses are separate from the input that it receives. Where the hell does that get us? Is that a pragmatic position to defer to in every conceivable debate?

Also, it's quite ironic that you bring this up, as you seem to conclude agnosticism. Not sure how Calvinism arises from the position that "nothing is knowable". That is the very definition of agnosticism.

I'm not concluding anything. I'm not even propsosing anything. I didn't come in this thread to propose anything or assert anything or argue for anything.

All I simply did was ask you questions about your assertions. I've asked you over 50 questions in this thread, and you haven't answered one of them.

Please forgive me if I have given you the impression of asserting anything. All I wanted to do was question your assertions. I think if you tried to answer some of my questions, some things would become apparent to you that will not be comfortable at first.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Here's a simple one Brittney. This conundrum was posed by Hume:

If we know the "material phenomena" by sensation, how can you ever test your sensation against the "reality" if the only thing that you have to test it by is another sensation?

In this view where sensation is the way we obtain knowledge, how do you ever get past the sensation to the "thing" itself?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Here's a crushing refutation of Objectivism by John Robbins:

Truth is a characteristic of propositions, and of nothing else. How a concept can be true or false [Rand] did not explain. “Cat,” spoken, heard, or read without context, is not true. It is not false. It is meaningless. If it is an answer to a question, it is an elliptical expression, meaning “That is a cat,” or, “My favorite animal is a cat.” But without context, “cat” is as meaningless as “boojum.” All by themselves, single concepts and single words are meaningless. They are neither true nor false. Rand made the same mistake that Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel made: thinking that concepts per se are true. If we are to know truth, if we are to discover truth, we must think in terms of propositions, not concepts. Truth —knowledge —comes only in propositions. “Conceptual truth” is a contradiction in terms. Truth is a relationship between a predicate and a subject. If there is no predicate, there is no truth. If there is no subject, there is no truth. Neither an experience, nor an encounter, nor an observation, nor an isolated concept, nor a single word can be true.

Truth, of course, is an insuperable problem for empiricism: Truth cannot be derived from something non-propositional, such as “observations.” Unless one starts with propositions, one cannot end with propositions. One cannot logically infer more than one begins with.

 

[WilliamC]

So long as one refrains from agreeing on axioms then no progress can be made in mathematics.

So long as one refrains from agreeing on observations then no progress can be made in science.

That's why philosophy is boring and, ultimately, non-productive in the material advancement of mankind.

If all one is willing to agree to is "I think therefore I am" then there really isn't much to discuss.

Damn that deceitful demon eh?

 

[BrittanySligar]

Here's a simple one Brittney. This conundrum was posed by Hume:

If we know the "material phenomena" by sensation, how can you ever test your sensation against the "reality" if the only thing that you have to test it by is another sensation?

In this view where sensation is the way we obtain knowledge, how do you ever get past the sensation to the "thing" itself?

We can never know. We can, however, work on the assumption that our senses give us limited into our universe. When we measure certain properties using instruments which are independent of our own senses, and receive data which can explain, using logic, our observations, then we can draw conclusions about the nature of reality.

We work on the assumption that our senses provide information about our world every day. That is the only way we can live. Contemplating whether or not anything is truly knowable is not a constructive effort, given everything that humans know must filter through our senses.

 

[Sola_Fide]

We can never know.

That's right. Your theory of knowledge is irrational and can't give you any knowledge. But you will go on...

We can, however, work on the assumption that our senses give us limited into our universe.

If you can't ever test your sensations against the material world you say exists, how does that give you knowledge of anything?

When we measure certain properties using instruments which are independent of our own senses, and receive data which can explain, using logic, our observations, then we can draw conclusions about the nature of reality.

How do you know what "the nature of reality" is if you can never get past your sense perceptions to test it or observe it? Dogs see in black and white. How do you prove that humans simply don't have color hallucinations? What makes one set of sensations valid and another set not? Through experimentation? So you don't care that you use argumentation that fallaciously asserts the consequent? You do know that correlation does not imply causation, right? Why would you appeal to methods that employ this fallacy?

We work on the assumption that our senses provide information about our world every day. That is the only way we can live.

1: Define sensation

2: Show how sensation produces perception;

3: Then show how perception produces abstract ideas.




Also, this is the inductive fallacy in action. How do you know that future instances will be like past instances? Because its always been that way in the past? But that's begging the question! You assume regularity when there is no reason to...and the appeal to regularity to show your assumption to be valid is just another circular argument.

Contemplating whether or not anything is truly knowable is not a constructive effort, given everything that humans know must filter through our senses.

If Hellen Keller was alive today, would you tell her that she couldn't think because she was deaf and blind? Where did the images come from to form the ideas? Where are the sensations? Was it wrong of her to author books that disproved your view of knowledge? Do all people have sensations? How do you know? Have you personally sensed every person having a sensation? If you didn't sense it personally, how do you know it?

 

[Okie RP fan]

Kokesh is a leftist. He has never done anything to help win the GOP primary, only hurt. He is a pawn for the left.Why he ONLY appeals to the left when Ron runs in the GOP primary is quite baffling. Kokesh just needs to go away. I don't get the obsession with him and why people like him. His background is nothing.

I will only say this:

I think his motives are clear, but, I can certainly see how some of the things he's done has hurt us (like in New Hampshire where he claimed he was "assaulted"). He's a good voice, but, some times I truly question where his heart his. Is he with us, or is he doing all of this for his own personal benefit? I've met him before and he does seem pretty genuine. I just think some times he gets in too high, if you know what I mean.

 

[BrittanySligar]

1: Define sensation

2: Show how sensation produces perception;

3: Then show how perception produces abstract ideas.

I literally took a test on this three days ago. I could post some lecture slides which describe the exact physiological mechanism.

We have various types of neurons which act as sensory receptors. For example, in our eyes, we have photoreceptor cells (neurons). These cells receive stimulus, and convert that stimulus into electrical energy. This energy travels via the optic nerve, through the thalamus, and eventually to the visual cortex of the brain, producing an interpretation of that stimulus (sensation).

If Hellen Keller was alive today, would you tell her that she couldn't think because she was deaf and blind? Where did the images come from to form the ideas? Where are the sensations? Was it wrong of her to author books that disproved your view of knowledge? Do all people have sensations? How do you know? Have you personally sensed every person having a sensation? If you didn't sense it personally, how do you know it?

No, that's a ridiculous claim. She was lacking just two modalities of sensory input. "exteroceptors", at that (exteroceptors interpret stimulus which occurs outside the body). That does not inhibit ones ability to receive and interpret the vast amount of other sensory information being received.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I literally took a test on this three days ago. I could post some lecture slides which describe the exact physiological mechanism.

lol! Really! Please post this. Let's examine it. What class was this for? Unanswerable Questions For Empiricists 101?

How did Hellen Keller think straight and write books without images from sense perceptions? How are blind people able to think without images from senses?

Give me a definition of sensation that distinguishes between the dream sensations and “real” sensations. Then give me a definition of sensation that distinguishes between the previous two kinds of sensations and sensations in hallucinations. Then give me a definition that distinguishes between sensation caused by psychological hallucinations and hallucinations caused by drugs.

 

[BrittanySligar]

lol! Really! Please post this. Let's examine it. What class was this for? Unanswerable Questions For Empiricists 101?.

Neurophysiology. Uploaded some slides for your enjoyment.

http://www.slideshare.net/bsligar/np-sensory-systems

EDIT: I Took the file down, in fear of copyright violations.

Just an overview here.. could post lectures on the individual sensory pathways if you'd like to try to call me out again.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I literally took a test on this three days ago. I could post some lecture slides which describe the exact physiological mechanism.

We have various types of neurons which act as sensory receptors. For example, in our eyes, we have photoreceptor cells (neurons). These cells receive stimulus, and convert that stimulus into electrical energy. This energy travels via the optic nerve, through the thalamus, and eventually to the visual cortex of the brain, producing an interpretation of that stimulus (sensation).



No, that's a ridiculous claim. She was lacking just two modalities of sensory input. "exteroceptors", at that (exteroceptors interpret stimulus which occurs outside the body). That does not inhibit ones ability to receive and interpret the vast amount of other sensory information being received.

WHERE DID HELLEN KELLER'S IMAGES COME FROM?

How do tastes, touch, and smells produce abstractions or images? Anything close to an answer would be fine to start out with.

To say that the brain has a chemical reaction does not explain abstractions. How can abstract entities like laws of logic exist if they are only in our individual brains? We don't have the same brains! If we don't have the same brains or the same sensations, why do we use the same laws of logic?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Neurophysiology. Uploaded some slides for your enjoyment.

http://www.slideshare.net/bsligar/np-sensory-systems

Just an overview here.. could post lectures on the individual sensory pathways if you'd like to try to call me out again.

This content is not supported for mobile.

Maybe you could summarize for me?

 

[BrittanySligar]

WHERE DID HELLEN KELLER'S IMAGES COME FROM?

How do tastes, touch, and smells produce abstractions or images? Anything close to an answer would be fine to start out with.

Some animals, and even some humans who lose their sight use sonar to bounce sound waves off of objects, and learn to use that data to interpret spacial information / "imagies" of their surroundings. It's not inconceivable that Hellen Keller could have used touch to interpret spacial information very pricisely.

 

[BrittanySligar]

This content is not supported for mobile.

Maybe you could summarize for me?

Aww, i uploaded it just for you!! It's lecture slides from my class, which explains how sensory information is transmitted and interpreted.