Talking to the other side - Antifa

[jediuser598]

He didn't ban on the basis or religion. It was country of origin.

Indonesia wasnt on the travel ban list.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I started basic, epistemology. I asked him a simple tautology, is it true that an axiom is an axiom. He responded that yes, that was true, then I asked him does truth exist? He said he did not know. We didn't get much further than, he doesn't believe that anything exists and nothing is happening, that change does not exist, or that he doesn't know if change exists, even though that change exists is axiomatic.

This is greek to me. Could you explain what you were talking about?

[Viktorthepirate]

He didn't ban on the basis or religion. It was country of origin.

Indonesia wasnt on the travel ban list.

Didn't someone say something about pay more attention to what they do than what they say?

[jediuser598]

I started basic, epistemology. I asked him a simple tautology, is it true that an axiom is an axiom. He responded that yes, that was true, then I asked him does truth exist? He said he did not know. We didn't get much further than, he doesn't believe that anything exists and nothing is happening, that change does not exist, or that he doesn't know if change exists, even though that change exists is axiomatic.

This is greek to me. Could you explain what you were talking about?

Say god is a deceiver. A god, who is all powerful, has the power to make everything you experience be false. (This is an argument from Descartes) So anything you observe, would be false, not true. You could walk around, see a blue sky as you look up, and in reality, it's red. That's basically the argument. It goes deeper than that but that's the basis.

In the face of that universal deceiver, what could you know to be true? At least one thing you could know for certain is that change exists. Something is happening. Even if your every sense, your every experience is a lie, you still know for certain that something is happening. Even if it is all just in your head, and this is all illusion, there is at least something happening in your head that is changing in order for this to happen. In essence, we do not live in a static universe, something is happening.

What is also true is the law of identity. If I say "an axiom is an axiom" then a reasonable person would have to say that's true. So from that we can say at least in small part, some truth in the universe exists.

What these axioms are doing are just setting up the basis for what we can say is absolutely true in our universe, even in the face of a universal deceiver.

[jediuser598]

He didn't ban on the basis or religion. It was country of origin.

Indonesia wasnt on the travel ban list.

Didn't someone say something about pay more attention to what they do than what they say?

So you admit he said it then?

[Okeefenokee]

He didn't ban on the basis or religion. It was country of origin.

Indonesia wasnt on the travel ban list.

Stop poking at his absolute confidence.

[SuburbanFarmer]

In the event that all of your senses were false, yet you sensed something changing, why would you assume that change is real?

Say I feel like a bug is crawling up my leg, but there's no bug. Should I assume there's a bug anyway?

[jediuser598]

He didn't ban on the basis or religion. It was country of origin.

Indonesia wasnt on the travel ban list.

Stop poking at his absolute confidence.

Heya, peanut gallery, you're welcome to the plate, any time, to poke holes in my arguments. There are very few things I'm absolutely certain about, and most of my arguments are being taken out for test drives to see how well they hold up to counter arguments. If you have a good counter argument, come at me bro.

[jediuser598]

In the event that all of your senses were false, yet you sensed something changing, why would you assume that change is real?

Say I feel like a bug is crawling up my leg, but there's no bug. Should I assume there's a bug anyway?

In order for something to change, something has to change. Even if we do not correctly perceive the change, I would argue we can still be certain that something changed. The bug may be fake, but something somewhere would have had to change in order for me to perceive the fake bug.

[SuburbanFarmer]

In the event that all of your senses were false, yet you sensed something changing, why would you assume that change is real?

Say I feel like a bug is crawling up my leg, but there's no bug. Should I assume there's a bug anyway?

In order for something to change, something has to change. Even if we do not correctly perceive the change, I would argue we can still be certain that something changed. The bug may be fake, but something somewhere would have had to change in order for me to perceive the fake bug.

If you mean my neurons firing in a random pattern, rather than a predictable one, sure.... But I'd never have the concept of neurons in the first place, if I couldn't sense anything correctly.