[aldo_14]

[q]no, you quoted one that while worded differently did not differ in meaning from the one i posted[/q]

within your interpretation, perhaps.

[q]it doesn't qualify as any definition of: "fact",  "evidence" or "establishment" [/q]

Neither of which have any relevance to the definitions I posted of logic.  Otherwise all philosophy would surely be delusion, for example.

[q]strange that i've personally defined it and yet i follow the formal established rules and even use the named fallacies from the established rules.[/q]

Personally.  Exactly my point.

[q]Logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy - but the fundamentals are no longer debated so far as I've ever seen, we haven't gone beyond the fundamentals.[/q]

Define how the fundamentals apply to the proposition of an inobservable 'thing' please.  in fact, best define the fundamentals.  Oh, and how you select which parts to use and why they are definitively to only possible and correct parts of logic of reference.

Although this is more Fords' area, to be fair.  I believe he studies it.

[Kazan]

thanks Maeg

[Kazan]

[q]no, you quoted one that while worded differently did not differ in meaning from the one i posted[/q]

within your interpretation, perhaps.

yes, isn't it odd that my interpretation is consistent with how it's used in universities and other places of academia

[q]it doesn't qualify as any definition of: "fact",  "evidence" or "establishment" [/q]

Neither of which have any relevance to the definitions I posted of logic.  Otherwise all philosophy would surely be delusion, for example.

no.......... it wouldn't.  Logic isn't a claim, logic is a system for evaluting claims, "unfounded" is a word used in this system

[q][sarcasm] strange that i've personally defined it[/sarcasm]  and yet i follow the formal established rules and even use the named fallacies from the established rules.[/q]

Personally.  Exactly my point.

your sarcasm dectector is malfunctioning, please have it service. Allow me to add [sarcasm] tags

I've been following the formal established rules and even citing the named fallacies from the established rules.  I haven't been using personally defined logic

[q]Logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy - but the fundamentals are no longer debated so far as I've ever seen, we haven't gone beyond the fundamentals.[/q]

Define how the fundamentals apply to the proposition of an inobservable 'thing' please.  in fact, best define the fundamentals.  Oh, and how you select which parts to use and why they are definitively to only possible and correct parts of logic of reference.

Although this is more Fords' area, to be fair.  I believe he studies it.

Off Topic

PS: The inobservable can NEVER have evidence [therefore it cannot ever be considered a fact] or become established

[aldo_14]

[q]
no.......... it wouldn't.  Logic isn't a claim, logic is a system for evaluting claims, "unfounded" is a word used in this system[/q]

But you've repeatedly redefined the claim that was made in trying to assert a logical disproval of it.  I've already cited a reason for 'unfounded' being abstracted or removed from the issue of factual evidence, moreso because we're talking about a belief system that recognises and acknowledges that inevidenceability.

[q]
your sarcasm dectector is malfunctioning, please have it service. Allow me to add [sarcasm] tags

I've been following the formal established rules and even citing the named fallacies from the established rules.  I haven't been using personally defined logic[/q]

Specify these rules, then.  specify why you selected them for use.  specify what rules you objected to the use of.

[q]
Off Topic[/q]

so you're not willing to answer?

[Ghostavo]

To be honest, this entire discussion was off topic the moment we departed from the actual content of the first post.

[StratComm]

Off Topic

That's so far removed from being relevant to where this topic is now that I'm just going to have to call you out on it.  How has anything said in the last 4 or 5 pages been on topic?  How was the post that started this whole damned argument on topic?  The debate between Goober and aldo was only marginally so, and we've now digressed so far from the content of the original post that it's laughable.

[Kazan]

[q]
no.......... it wouldn't.  Logic isn't a claim, logic is a system for evaluting claims, "unfounded" is a word used in this system[/q]

But you've repeatedly redefined the claim that was made in trying to assert a logical disproval of it.  I've already cited a reason for 'unfounded' being abstracted or removed from the issue of factual evidence, moreso because we're talking about a belief system that recognises and acknowledges that inevidenceability.

what have I redefined? nothing. 

Sure you've cited a reason that doesn't mean that it's a compelling reason, or even a reason with merit. 

Even if I were to accept that something could both exist and be inobservable (which i most certainly do not) that thing would STILL not satisfy the definition of "evidence", "fact", "establish(ment/able/ed)" and would remain ungrounded.

[q]
your sarcasm dectector is malfunctioning, please have it service. Allow me to add [sarcasm] tags

I've been following the formal established rules and even citing the named fallacies from the established rules.  I haven't been using personally defined logic[/q]

Specify these rules, then.  specify why you selected them for use.  specify what rules you objected to the use of.

I'm not a professor: take a college course in logic

[q]
Off Topic[/q]

so you're not willing to answer?

no, it's not relevant to whether or not faith constitutes basis/grounds/evidence/fact



This is going no where - you keep repeating the same piece of semantics which i've already explained why it's incorrect over and over

you're engaged in argumentum ad nauseam

[Kazan]

Off Topic

That's so far removed from being relevant to where this topic is now that I'm just going to have to call you out on it.  How has anything said in the last 4 or 5 pages been on topic?  How was the post that started this whole damned argument on topic?  The debate between Goober and aldo was only marginally so, and we've now digressed so far from the content of the original post that it's laughable.

it was off topic from aldo's and my debate - not the thread.  It was irrelevant to our debate - it was off topic, a red herring, and attempt to change the subject

[Kazan]

This is over, i'm not replying again aldo.  You've engaged in Shifting the Burdeon of Proof, argumentum ad verecundiam in fallicious usage, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam

You are wasting my time.

[StratComm]

Off Topic

That's so far removed from being relevant to where this topic is now that I'm just going to have to call you out on it.  How has anything said in the last 4 or 5 pages been on topic?  How was the post that started this whole damned argument on topic?  The debate between Goober and aldo was only marginally so, and we've now digressed so far from the content of the original post that it's laughable.

it was off topic from aldo's and my debate - not the thread.  It was irrelevant to our debate - it was off topic, a red herring, and attempt to change the subject

It was a request for clarification in addition to a continuance of the dabate.  It was not an attempt to change the topic or otherwise divert attention from anything else.  At least that's how I see it, not being in between you two or anything.  I think this whole debate has been stupid, since you're quibbling over a) the context of a word used in the definition of another word and b) what constitutes being needlessly rude to a group of people because they do not believe the same thing as you.  Of course, you're not replying to this thread any more.

[Ford Prefect]

You've engaged in Shifting the Burdeon of Proof, argumentum ad verecundiam in fallicious usage, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam

Not to mention cogito ergo sum, habeas corpus, ex post facto, sanctus, dominus deus, in pace requiem, and Marcus Aurelius.

[Flipside]

Well the whole argument seems to be going Flamus Maximus anyway...

[Setekh]

You are wasting my time.

You are wasting your own time. If you don't want to be here, don't come in.

[Goober5000]

We're all atheists to so many dieties - for example take christians, they believe in only one god while they do not believe in every other god in existance.  Do we term their lack of belief for Zeus as "a belief"? no because that would be absurd.  Atheists just go one god further than christians.

That's incorrect.  We believe that there are many gods.  We just don't worship most of them.

We worship the Most High God - the God above all others.

you can thank karajorma for the following concession:

I will conceed that calling someone delusional can be considered rude, even if it's true.

Thank God for small victories.

For something to be unfounded, i.e. delusional, you need to be able to disprove that basis, otherwise it is just a 'I'm right and you're wrong' type insult.

and here is your error - you're committing a Shifting of the Burdeon of Proof Fallacy

unfounded specifically means unfounded logically, lacking evidence.  The burdeon of proof is the person asserting something, until they have evidence their position meets the dictionary definition of unfounded.  It doesn't matter what their reason for believing it is, it doesn't matter if they consider it "founded on faith" - it isn't founded

the clearest way to demonstrate this is in a court of law "I have faith in X" doesn't make assertion X founded in a court of law, it's "unfounded" - there is no definition of "unfounded" that allows for faith to be considered as a valid basis.

This isn't strictly correct.  In a trial by jury, the defendant is presumed innocent even if that isn't known with certainty.  Both guilt and innocence can be proved, you know.  Our legal system chooses to presume innocence if there's not enough evidence to decide one way or the other, but that's strictly speaking an arbitrary moral convention.  We could just as easily choose to presume guilt.

It's the same way with your position.  For lack of proof there is a God, you're presuming that there isn't.  For lack of proof there isn't a God, others presume that there is.

On the subject of faith and logic: Has anyone ever read St. Anselm's inductive argument for the existence of god? Obviously it's not airtight, but it's actually really scary how close he gets to proving god through logic.

Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

[Ace]

Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it?

If one is forced into an existence with no ability to unmake that act, there is no free will.

[aldo_14]

This is over, i'm not replying again aldo.  You've engaged in Shifting the Burdeon of Proof, argumentum ad verecundiam in fallicious usage, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam

You are wasting my time.

Heehee.  I've been away for like a day and you kept going.  Ok, let me see.

Burden of proof; well, I disagree with your placement of it in such a manner as satisfies your own ends.
argumentum ad verecundiam;  i'm not entirely sure where you get that from.  I'm pretty sure I could contend your entire arguement has been based upon your own (opinion of your) authority rather than a quantative assesment.
argumentum ad populum; Um, I don't where you got that from.  I never asserted anything was true due to weight of belief.  If I had, I'd have been contradicting my own personal philosophy.  Unless you mean that more people seem to be nipping in here to agree with me than you, which I think is only a fair point to raise.
argumentum ad hominem; presumably you think I've insulted or attacked you in some.  you tend to regard disagreement that way, I've noticed.  But the only time I've done that is when you've made rather (IMO) arrogant and egocentric statements along the lines 'this is the end' or 'I've won' or soforth.  Effectively trying to subvert what is supposedly a debating process.
argumentum ad nauseam; If I'm guilty of this, so are you.  Welcome to the internet.

And all these are kind of personal things, really.  I think you seem to be having a go at me as much as anything I've said, to be honest.  I'm not sure any of these logic rules apply to the crux of this, which IMO is whether you can call someone delusional without being able to prove what say wrong.

I have merely asked, before, about the rules of logic which you are using to assert yourself in such a...positive...manner.  Y'know, how you can confidently claim to be absolutely right about what is and is not knowable.  My suspicion is (based upon your $DIETY based stuff a few pages back) that you're basing it upon something akin to propositional/predicate logic, which in my experience can't function with this amount of unknown factors (i.e. essentially everything is unknown), and you can't evaluate or infer based on unknowns.  And why i'm interested, which I'd say is not OT, is because you said earlier that, in essence, the ancient philosophical debate on this subject is invalid.  Which leads me to question how you could just dismiss such a long, ancient debate, which in many ways reflects strongly upon human nature (i.e. how we conceptualize the unknown).

Unfortunately, this whole thing seems to revolve not around that, but differing interpretations of a word.  Perhaps I too strongly stated my interpretation, because in reality the point is (or should have been made as) that there are multiple linguistic interpretations that vary ever so slightly in focus and specific meaning.  and it has switched rather off topic from the original bone of contention, I guess.  so I'll go back to that, and if you want to carry on, by all means.  If not, fair enough.

Ok... so why i think it is wrong to call religious people delusional (I've said is before, but perhaps not in so few words);

1) You can't prove your position of the converse.  Now, I know you'll bring up 'can't prove doesn't exist' etc, but we're dealing with a concept that is expressly outside proof or disproof, so I don't think you can adequetely contradict it.  I mean, if you went 'gravity doesn't exist' or something, you'd still have to qualify that  Likewise with something like the Higgs Boson doesn't exist (neither are ideal analogies, of course, as it's not such a nebulous and explicitly inobservable concept).  That's not a commentary of which I feel is the most sensible or believeable proposition, as you know.

2) The foundation of religion is faith.  Any sane religious peep I think recognises and acknowledges that the fundamental tenet of their belief system is based upon belief in something outside observability.  They don't say 'look, there's God at the bus stop' or something.  Were they to be delusional, I think that would entail they did not recognise the faith basis of their religion and instead cited some form of 'evidence'.

Now, as a really quick aside.  2,3 posts or so (of mine) ago I posted a big list of inference as to the meaning of (offhand) delusion, foundation, etc.  I couldn't find any explicit requirement for hard factual/neutral/scientific evidence within them.

[Goober5000]

Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it?

If one is forced into an existence with no ability to unmake that act, there is no free will.

Free will isn't absolute.  We don't have a choice whether to exist.  We do have a choice what to make of it.  We aren't able to jump up and fly around.  We are able to invent airplanes.

[Grug]

Free will isn't absolute.  We don't have a choice whether to exist.  We do have a choice what to make of it.  We aren't able to jump up and fly around.  We are able to invent airplanes.

...and research stem cells to assist those in need.

[Goober5000]

And you have a moral obligation to ensure that it's done without exploiting embryos.

You have free will to make your own moral choices.  That doesn't change whether they are morally good or morally bad ones.

[NGTM-1R]

* ngtm1r listens to the screech of brakes as Grug attempts to violently steer the thread back on-topic.