Formal Debate Challenge Thread

[Mick]

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?


I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not sure how you would even argue the opposite, that there are no disembodied minds. You're not omniscient.

I'm sure Mick knows this, of course.

An argument from principle. Take Teuton. He thinks that it is a matter of principle that disembodied minds cannot exist.

[Rumraket]

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?


I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That is dependent on your perspective. On my view, materialism or physicialism is an extraordinary claim.

From an evidentialist perspective, there isn't evidence of anything else. This is not a claim of certainty that there isn't something more, or that it is logically impossible to exist, only that there is no empirical evidence to justify it. Although I'm sympathetic to complaints that proponents of "the immaterial/supernatural" is erecting incomprehensible propositions, I have to be mindful that my comprehension isn't a requirement of the true nature of things.

What little philosophical arguments are erected in support of "non-physicalism" (for lack of a better term) it seems to me at bottom all reduce to arguments from ignorance. Basically it all boils down to people not being able to understand how matter, energy and the interactions between them in space and time, can produce phenomenon x.

[Rumraket]

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?


I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not sure how you would even argue the opposite, that there are no disembodied minds. You're not omniscient.

I'm sure Mick knows this, of course.

You're right, I wouldn't. My concern is entirely with what we are justified in believing, not with what is concievably within the realm of possibility. What should we believe of the world as human beings? What is the best evidence we have so far? Disembodied minds, souls and the supernatural are all highly doubful and extremely weakly supported propositions that there simply isn't enough evidence to justify believing.

[Mick]

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That is dependent on your perspective. On my view, materialism or physicialism is an extraordinary claim.

From an evidentialist perspective, there isn't evidence of anything else. This is not a claim of certainty that there isn't something more, or that it is logically impossible to exist, only that there is no empirical evidence to justify it. Although I'm sympathetic to complaints that proponents of "the immaterial/supernatural" is erecting incomprehensible propositions, I have to be mindful that my comprehension isn't a requirement of the true nature of things.

What little philosophical arguments are erected in support of "non-physicalism" (for lack of a better term) it seems to me at bottom all reduce to arguments from ignorance. Basically it all boils down to people not being able to understand how matter, energy and the interactions between them in space and time, can produce phenomenon x.

Your first statement is question begging. Again, on my view, as I see the world and the evidence, your claim is extraordinary.
You don't get to presume that it is my view that is extraordinary and then demand that i meet some high standard of evidence any more than I get to demand that of you.

[Rumraket]

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That is dependent on your perspective. On my view, materialism or physicialism is an extraordinary claim.

From an evidentialist perspective, there isn't evidence of anything else. This is not a claim of certainty that there isn't something more, or that it is logically impossible to exist, only that there is no empirical evidence to justify it. Although I'm sympathetic to complaints that proponents of "the immaterial/supernatural" is erecting incomprehensible propositions, I have to be mindful that my comprehension isn't a requirement of the true nature of things.

What little philosophical arguments are erected in support of "non-physicalism" (for lack of a better term) it seems to me at bottom all reduce to arguments from ignorance. Basically it all boils down to people not being able to understand how matter, energy and the interactions between them in space and time, can produce phenomenon x.

Your first statement is question begging.

I'm obviously speaking about what I have come across. There's no reason to assume I think I'm oniscient.

Again, on my view, as I see the world and the evidence, your claim is extraordinary. You don't get to presume that it is my view that is extraordinary and then demand that i meet some high standard of evidence any more than I get to demand that of you.

Your epistemology is useless, you can't do anything with it. How many vaccines have you discovered? How many historical facts has philosophizing about them discovered? That's right, none.

The success of empirical science vs the emptiness of wibble. Yeah, I'm afraid I won that one.

[Mick]

That is dependent on your perspective. On my view, materialism or physicialism is an extraordinary claim.

From an evidentialist perspective, there isn't evidence of anything else. This is not a claim of certainty that there isn't something more, or that it is logically impossible to exist, only that there is no empirical evidence to justify it. Although I'm sympathetic to complaints that proponents of "the immaterial/supernatural" is erecting incomprehensible propositions, I have to be mindful that my comprehension isn't a requirement of the true nature of things.

What little philosophical arguments are erected in support of "non-physicalism" (for lack of a better term) it seems to me at bottom all reduce to arguments from ignorance. Basically it all boils down to people not being able to understand how matter, energy and the interactions between them in space and time, can produce phenomenon x.

Your first statement is question begging.

I'm obviously speaking about what I have come across. There's no reason to assume I think I'm oniscient.

Again, on my view, as I see the world and the evidence, your claim is extraordinary. You don't get to presume that it is my view that is extraordinary and then demand that i meet some high standard of evidence any more than I get to demand that of you.

Your epistemology is useless, you can't do anything with it. How many vaccines have you discovered? How many historical facts has philosophizing about them discovered? That's right, none.

The success of empirical science vs the emptiness of wibble. Yeah, I'm afraid I won that one.

Do you even know what my epistemology is? Please elucidate it for us.

You sound mad that you don't get to presume that I am making extraordinary claims, at least not without begging the question. Philosophy is hard, isn't it? Rather than pout and stamp your feet, perhaps you should bracket your presumption that my claims are extraordinary and then argue for it.

[Rumraket]

From an evidentialist perspective, there isn't evidence of anything else. This is not a claim of certainty that there isn't something more, or that it is logically impossible to exist, only that there is no empirical evidence to justify it. Although I'm sympathetic to complaints that proponents of "the immaterial/supernatural" is erecting incomprehensible propositions, I have to be mindful that my comprehension isn't a requirement of the true nature of things.

What little philosophical arguments are erected in support of "non-physicalism" (for lack of a better term) it seems to me at bottom all reduce to arguments from ignorance. Basically it all boils down to people not being able to understand how matter, energy and the interactions between them in space and time, can produce phenomenon x.

Your first statement is question begging.

I'm obviously speaking about what I have come across. There's no reason to assume I think I'm oniscient.

Again, on my view, as I see the world and the evidence, your claim is extraordinary. You don't get to presume that it is my view that is extraordinary and then demand that i meet some high standard of evidence any more than I get to demand that of you.

Your epistemology is useless, you can't do anything with it. How many vaccines have you discovered? How many historical facts has philosophizing about them discovered? That's right, none.

The success of empirical science vs the emptiness of wibble. Yeah, I'm afraid I won that one.

Do you even know what my epistemology is? Please elucidate it for us.

Yeah, worthless.

You sound mad that you don't get to presume that I am making extraordinary claims

I'm quite happy, thank you. Don't take mistake my disagreement with my emotional state.

, at least not without begging the question. Philosophy is hard, isn't it?

Not really, in fact it's rather easy I'd say.

Rather than pout and stamp your feet, perhaps you should bracket your presumption that my claims are extraordinary and then argue for it.

They contradict everyday experience and established history. Done.

[Mick]

Your first statement is question begging.

I'm obviously speaking about what I have come across. There's no reason to assume I think I'm oniscient.

Again, on my view, as I see the world and the evidence, your claim is extraordinary. You don't get to presume that it is my view that is extraordinary and then demand that i meet some high standard of evidence any more than I get to demand that of you.

Your epistemology is useless, you can't do anything with it. How many vaccines have you discovered? How many historical facts has philosophizing about them discovered? That's right, none.

The success of empirical science vs the emptiness of wibble. Yeah, I'm afraid I won that one.

Do you even know what my epistemology is? Please elucidate it for us.

Yeah, worthless.

You sound mad that you don't get to presume that I am making extraordinary claims

I'm quite happy, thank you. Don't take mistake my disagreement with my emotional state.

, at least not without begging the question. Philosophy is hard, isn't it?

Not really, in fact it's rather easy I'd say.

Rather than pout and stamp your feet, perhaps you should bracket your presumption that my claims are extraordinary and then argue for it.

They contradict everyday experience and established history. Done.

No, philosophy is not easy, and your posts are clear evidence for that. Come back when you got something a little more substantial than hot air and pouts.

[Animavore]

You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.

Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.

Even if you could show homosexuality was a departure from 'proper form' you still have a long way to go to show that we should deny people rights based on this. In fact, if what you say is true, then denying homosexuals rights is as egregious as denying Down Syndrome people rights. You make your case against gay marriage, for instance, worse, not better by following this line of argument. So I'm not sure why you would even want to employ it.

You're confused. NL theorists will argue that homosexuality and Downs are both disordered conditions, true. However, nothing about being homosexual or a person with Downs is immoral in and of itself. Rather, it is the behaviour that NT theorists condemn as immoral. To be a homosexual is not a choice, but to engage in homosexual sex is. That behaviour is what will be said to be contrary to natural law, for NT theorists. The rights denied to homosexual persons, by NT theorists, is entirely based upon behaviour. In contrast, behaving like a person with Downs, if you have Downs, is not immoral, as it is not a matter of choice, for NT theorists. However, if there was a cure for Downs, and a person with Downs did not want the cure, then, depending on their cognitive level, there might be a moral issue there, for NT theorists. Likewise, since I am deafened, many NT theorists would see a problem if I were to choose to be deafened rather than wear my hearing aids.

All I'm seeing there is a pathetic attempt at shifting the old bullshit claim that "homosexuality is a choice" to "homosexual acts are a choice".
Transparent reasoning is transparent.

[jamest]

I'd be interested in debating this:

"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.

It'd be a waste of time, Mick. The argument would hinge upon you proving that there was an objective basis to ethics, or upon your opponent doing otherwise. Abortion is not relevant to such a discussion. In philosophy, you have to deal with the big issues before confronting everything else.

[Rumraket]

No, philosophy is not easy, and your posts are clear evidence for that.

I disagree, it's really not hard at all. It's often kinda boring because of all the irrelevant word salad you have to trawl through to get at the heart of the matter, but hard? No.

Hey, I asked you a question by the way. As a christian, do you believe in a soul and an afterlife?

Come back when you got something a little more substantial than hot air and pouts.

I told you why your claims are extraordinary, they're wholly beyond our everyday experiences of the world. You're postulating unobserved and undetectable entities or ridiculously improbable events. You can't tell us anything meaningful about your "forms", you more or less just assert there is such a thing. What's that worth? What can we do with it?

That organism I gave you a picture of in the other thread, what can your philosophy of forms teach us about it? It's a serious question.

[Thomas Eshuis]

You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.

Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.

Even if you could show homosexuality was a departure from 'proper form' you still have a long way to go to show that we should deny people rights based on this. In fact, if what you say is true, then denying homosexuals rights is as egregious as denying Down Syndrome people rights. You make your case against gay marriage, for instance, worse, not better by following this line of argument. So I'm not sure why you would even want to employ it.

You're confused. NL theorists will argue that homosexuality and Downs are both disordered conditions, true. However, nothing about being homosexual or a person with Downs is immoral in and of itself. Rather, it is the behaviour that NT theorists condemn as immoral. To be a homosexual is not a choice, but to engage in homosexual sex is. That behaviour is what will be said to be contrary to natural law, for NT theorists. The rights denied to homosexual persons, by NT theorists, is entirely based upon behaviour. In contrast, behaving like a person with Downs, if you have Downs, is not immoral, as it is not a matter of choice, for NT theorists. However, if there was a cure for Downs, and a person with Downs did not want the cure, then, depending on their cognitive level, there might be a moral issue there, for NT theorists. Likewise, since I am deafened, many NT theorists would see a problem if I were to choose to be deafened rather than wear my hearing aids.

Again Mick, not homosexuals have sex, nor is there any sex act that heterosexuals also can't perform.

[Thomas Eshuis]

I'm obviously speaking about what I have come across. There's no reason to assume I think I'm oniscient.


Your epistemology is useless, you can't do anything with it. How many vaccines have you discovered? How many historical facts has philosophizing about them discovered? That's right, none.

The success of empirical science vs the emptiness of wibble. Yeah, I'm afraid I won that one.

Do you even know what my epistemology is? Please elucidate it for us.

Yeah, worthless.

You sound mad that you don't get to presume that I am making extraordinary claims

I'm quite happy, thank you. Don't take mistake my disagreement with my emotional state.

, at least not without begging the question. Philosophy is hard, isn't it?

Not really, in fact it's rather easy I'd say.

Rather than pout and stamp your feet, perhaps you should bracket your presumption that my claims are extraordinary and then argue for it.

They contradict everyday experience and established history. Done.

No, philosophy is not easy,

Yes, it really is.
Especially the kind you engage in.

Come back when you got something a little more substantial than hot air and pouts.

Oh Irony thou art a fickle bitch.