View Single Post
Old 01-05-2009, 01:44 AM   #24
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,001
I have 1 apple. Someone gives me another apple. I now have 2 apples.


Please prove to me that I, in fact, have 3 apples. Prove to me that I have 50. You cannot, because I only have 2.

Like I said in the other thread:

It is fact that you breath air. And by air, we mean a balance of oxygen. You can keep breaking that down to smaller and smaller bits, but it comes back to the same general principle that we breathe air.

You can tell me that we breath water or helium. Or that, we have no idea anyway that we breath at all. That breathing is a subjective human construct that, objectively, means nothing, and thus whether we do it or not has nothing to do with our daily lives.

The problem with testing this philiosphical theory is that you would die.

This has been tested. It is being tested right now as your breath and read this. If you believe differently, then tell me I'm wrong. Or, if you are up to it, prove me wrong.

You will be wrong upon the merit that you would be dead from lack of oxygen to the brain.

Thus, the difference between fact and opinion. Your opinion can say that you breath and survive off of pure water, but testing that hypothesis would prove you 100% wrong.

Now, if we want to get into a discussion about the invisible pink unicorn or God, then the absolute answer to all life and everything starts turning subjective in many ways. Which is why this argument is fair for a debate on things like morality and the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything, and not on scientific, proven fact.

Going on Achille's example: You would watch a movie staring Brad Pitt. Subjectively, you could all decide whether or not Brad Pitt was a good actor, a good person, etc etc etc till the world ends, but the fact remains that Brad Pitt was the one that acted in that movie. If you disagree because you think facts are impossible to know, then the Credits have proven your theory wrong.

By claiming there are no absolutes, you are making an absolute statement. Your argument eats itself.

The fact of the matter is, if you could just deny that there is no such thing as a fact... You would be Neo from the Matrix. You could fly, because there is no such thing as Gravity, because it is a human construct. You can shoot beams of energy out of your hand, because it is a human construct that says you cannot. You could turn into a male or female at will, because male and female are human constructs.

I'm not attacking you directly. I am simply pointing out why your argument is almost impossible to support, debate against, or debate for. It is by your own admission, irrational, as you seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that we are seemingly incapable of rational, or at least attempted, objective science.

Which is why it is difficult to both read, understand, and debate against. As has been stated, the burden of proof is on you. And, as you've stated, you are not here to prove anything as you don't seem to believe that proof for anything exists.

And when you don't seem to believe in anything, and aren't willing to believe there is anything... Well, makes rational arguments in your directly difficult.

Originally Posted by Adavardes
Never just assume that you completely understand water.
I do not recall anyone saying we understood water 100% down to infinity.

But the fact is that it does exist, and the fact is that it is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. While you can continue to look down on that infinitely to understand every teeny tiny thing that makes every process of it work, we know the basic construct of it.

We know because we've ripped water apart, and put it back together.

Originally Posted by Adavardes
We used to think the world was flat. Look how quickly that changed.
Again, your own argument eats itself.

We now know the world to be orb shaped. It is fact, because we can sail around the world and not fall off. We know because we have satellites that orbit the earth.

The thought that the earth was flat was embraced by the ignorant, while the rest of the world had known the earth was orb shaped for thousands of years previously.

Is the earth orb a theory as well? Are we incapable of knowing that is is a roundish shape? Is it really a square all along and just tricking us?

While it can and often is productive to be devil's advocate, it is also just as often very counter intuitive.

See: Human requirement for breathing oxygen. You can be a devil's advocate against it, but you'd kill yourself trying to prove otherwise.

Again, the difference between known fact and opinion. While opinion is subjective, we know some things to be fact.

See: The fact that the world is round. Unless, however, you'd like to argue against that as well.

Originally Posted by Adavardes
That's the point of this whole "There are no universal absolutes". You're a person that sees black and white amidst grey. I don't. For your perspective, and from your logic, you're right, I will concede that. From mine, I'm right. And that's how I see things. Sorry.
You just admitted that to you, you are correct.

Thus, again, you have made an absolute statement and your argument falls backward.

Sorry, but in a world of pure gray you cannot be right or wrong. By saying that, to you, you assume you are right... you are making a black and white statement, thus proving that you see a black and white in your spectrum like all of us.

Scientific fact is usually right until proven wrong, generally. It may take a long time of trial and error to reach that conclusion, but there are a few things that we have proven over time. Its nor really "sorta" right.

Like, it is stupid to say everyone can die of AIDS. Some people who have AIDS die of something else. Some people are immune. But, it applies to a group of people and we know that it has killed people. It would be incorrect to state as fact that AIDS kills humans, as the correct question would be "AIDS has been known to kill humans". You add the subjective experiences of many people into an objective picture of what the disease has been known to do to a good number of humans.

You -can- argue semantics, and are free too. Semantics are what help move the process along. But if you are just going to say that semantics themselves are human...

Well, all I can answer with is that your argument is wrong by the virtue that you think all human's attempted answer is wrong. Everyone is wrong, including you.

If you would care to elaborate, I would be obliged to read it. But, seeing as your argument is irrational to the point of disproving yourself and every other human, the burden of elaborating and/or proving your argument rests upon your shoulders.

Originally Posted by Adavardes
But, I can assure you that you cannot do all of the above. If you can, please fly to my location, turn into a girl, and shoot my car with an energy beam. Then, I will follow you to the ends of the earth.

Whether it's right or not is irrelevant, because, in context with the logic of the concept, right and wrong is subjective, not absolute
While someone may be right to one person and be wrong to another, the fact is we all breathe oxygen. You need sustenance to live. If you brain is crushed by a car, then your body ceases to function.

Unless the car, your brain, the road, and you yourself do not in fact exist as we human are incapable of proving such a hypothesis, and you cannot die because the universe is entirely a subjective world in the eye of you, and thus we don't exist or...

See where I'm coming from? Its like trying to argue against someone who is claiming we are all hooked up to the Matrix, and are being used as batteries and if we just believe, our subjective minds can have us flying over rooftops as the thought that we cannot is pointless as it is a human thought keeping us on the ground.

Its a theory that can neither be proven, nor dis-proven. It falls because it, by its own definition, has no ground to stand upon.

Now, while rational and irrational may be human constructs, we've done a lot with a collective subjective civilization over the years. We've seemingly proven that electricity moves through metal. We've seemingly proven that we need to breath, and if we refuse to... we die. We've seemingly proven that if you get air to move across a smooth surface correctly, you can make a giant tube lift 200 people in their air and get them from point A to B.

So, unless this is really all the matrix, or we are all really just part of your imagination...

There is nothing else to do with your argument but say...

It doesn't so much give me something philosophical to think about as it just makes me look around in a stupor. And believe me, I get where you are coming from. For the longest time, I was a full supporter of full moral relativism. I'm not anymore, but I can wrap my head around your argument up until you get to the point where you say that science has seemingly never proven a thing.

You may not be saying that, but by stating that proof, right, wrong, etc are all incorrect attempts at objectivity... I again ask you to look around, as you've asked me to, and ask yourself where it all came from, why it is there, and who or what had to happen for it to be there. If you honestly don't believe any of it is there...

Then I don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by Vanir
given choice: have fun with topic, argue with each other...
And this is why I heavily distaste Philosophy. As much of the time is it one persons entirely subjective viewpoint upon the entirety of creation, it leaves little fun to be had outside of the philosopher.

Originally Posted by Vanir
Okay well evil people aside where they belong.
I'll be sure to direct this quote to the quote above it.

Last edited by True_Avery; 01-05-2009 at 07:14 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: