All fifteen are unjustified. All are gross overgeneralizations. And as I was hinting at, since you're talking in academic/formal terms here, there is nothing that warrants a "rebuttal", for they are all gratuitous assertions. In other words, nothing stated has been argued for. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of s/he who is making statements about the world.

He needs to show how he's arrived at these 'conclusions'. He needs to provide some sort of argument.

I read the words. I think that I understand what you mean. To be sure, could you define a few of the terms?

truth=?
fact=?
opinion=?
the truth=?
reality=?
perceived reality=?

Since certain language is being used, and since you've now more or less issued a challenge for a 'liberal' to argue with conservatives without resorting to ad hominem type fallacies, allow me to gladly accept that challenge. I mean, I've read through the thread and have been rather unimpressed. So let's get started, shall we Dodo?



To begin, I must ask:

Where IS the argument in the OP that you would like for me to counter? Nothing looks like what an argument is supposed to look like. To quite the contrary, it all looks like fallacy on parade. If need be we could go through all of them one at a time. So, once again...

Where has an argument been given here?

Folk lie to get along.

Truth comes from truth?



How's that work?

The effects/affects of the belief are real.

It's not a matter of whether or not I want to call it "thinking". It is a matter of whether or not it qualifies as such. What qualifies as thought is not a matter of preference or opinion. The term is used to describe something that existed before the term. So, what qualifies as "thought" is set out by a criterion that is point-of-view-invariant. That being said...

Stimulus/response mechanisms do not require thought nor sensing. The use of "sense" is misleading. Sensing requires sensory organs. Plants have no such thing. Using the term "sense" when describing how plants DETECT and react to stimulus is to describe things with words that do not align with fact/reality.






Here again there is a significant problem with this account. Saying that "they [snip] produce a variety of blossoms to attract insects to their pollen" is very misleading. It presupposes a plant's intent to produce blossoms for that specific reason, which requires a creature capable of forming thought/belief about fact/reality and then deliberately taking certain goal-oriented action.

Plants simply don't have what it takes to be able to do that.







Dreamy.







Cell/body dualism?

The cells are the body. The cells are the brain. The brain is a part of the body. The body is a part of the brain. Electrical signals traveling throughout our bodies do not qualify as individual cells communicating with each other and with the body.

To communicate is to successfully convey thought/belief about fact/reality.






What other kind of "terms" do we have other than "human terms" that we could use to define 'thought' in relation to?

If by that you mean something like "people define the word 'thought' in relation to what we know about human thought" then that doesn't do the discussion here any favors. It only puts bias on display. The most reasonable path of pursuit regarding our figuring out what qualifies as thought must begin where we know thought exists. We must look at and compare all known examples of thought and then compare those with cases of possible thought.

The known examples of thought must begin with human thought and those are expressed through language. This all requires a physiological nervous system replete with the capability to draw correlations and the capacity to vocalize utterances(to start at least). Roughly speaking, we can know many things about thought by looking in these two areas. The former(language) for meaning and the latter(the brain) for knowledge regarding which parts of the brain are in use while thinking about different subject matters.

If we use this knowledge by comparing it to other creatures that possess similar physical features, then doing so warrants subsequent observation/study of those which have or may have what it takes. I mean, there is no reason whatsoever to use what we do know to study bacteria, an amoeba, or fungus as though they possess thought for there is no justified reason to think that they are capable of it. We certainly are foolish to build any subsequent belief upon such a flimsy notion. Could it be the case that there are other kinds of communication, thought, and what not? Sure. I mean it is logically possible. Possibility is inadequate reason for assent.

However, there is no reason to deny that thought/belief formation happens within many other kinds of animals. The exact content of that thought/belief will always have doubt attached to it, but we can safely conclude that thought/belief formation happens by watching, recording, and carefully assessing certain behaviors.

Well yeah, I'm looking for an argument that begins with sensible premisses, has a valid form, and subsequently offers warrant for claiming that the universe is a "thinking universe". That ought include something more substantial than just one's preference.




Seeing how this is a philosophy forum, any and all exploration of possibilities ought at least follow the rules of valid inference. I don't assume that you 'want to engage me in an argument'. In fact, at this point in time, based upon how you've used the word "argument", I do not even assume that you mean the same thing I do by the term "argument". I'm using it in the standard academic sense. It is not meant as a descriptor of two(or more) folk in the midst of verbal/written disagreement, which is how you seem to be using it.




It can be both.

You already know that I know how to discuss ideas and possibilities. What possible reason do you have for feigning doubt other than for rhetorical effect? You're presupposing that arguments and discussions are mutually exclusive. They're not.

Anything worth listening to and/or believing when having such a discussion has to have certain qualities, validity being one of those and sensible grounds being another. When someone takes the role of making claims about the way the universe is, especially when doing so on an internet philosophy forum, then they voluntarily enter into an obligation to justify their claims. Again, that is especially true when and if those claims are contrary to common convention.

"I know what I know" does not say anything at all. It certainly does not explain what sort of criterion one can use(or you yourself use) to distinguish between different writings which make the same claim of being the word of God.

Do you have something interesting to say regarding the topic at hand?

What does it take for you to assent to the belief that any particular piece of writing is the word of God? I mean, how do you distinguish between all of the ones that make that claim?

The irony is thick.

This clearly says that only I can verify whether or not the grounds that support your taking credit are fallacious. Roughly, to verify is to confirm. I am doing just that, yet you are still arguing the opposite.

By your logic the KKK can take credit for the civil rights movements.

One's preference does not a good argument make.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc

Faith is unquestioned trust in the truthfulness of a source. I would agree that it can be very dangerous, especially when it is unshakable and having it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is part of it's appeal.

You may attempt to take credit if you like, based upon whatever reasoning you may have for asking. However, the act of taking credit is not satisfied unless credit is given. I mean, without both parts, taking credit for anything becomes rather nonsensical.

For instance:

One may 'take credit' for inventing the automobile, even though they were not alive when it took place; one may 'take credit' for stopping the holocaust even though they were an active participant; one may 'take credit' for that which happened and/or would have happened regardless of whether or not they were ever born. So we can see that it is clear that in order for taking credit to mean something more than just someone overestimating their own effect/affect, the taking of credit must also be accompanied by a giving of credit.

With all this in mind, I'm sorry Pan, but I cannot give you credit for the topic any more than I can give it to Bertrand Russell, Epicurus, Wittgenstein, Austin, Davidson, Kant, Spinoza, or Alice in Wonderland. In fact, there is no single entity that such credit could be attributed towards. However - if pressed hard enough and in the right kind of way - I would have to admit and offer credit to the aforementioned source(s), Russell in particular.

So, do you have any comment and/or thoughts regarding the subject matter set out in the OP?

It is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. For example, none of us could choose to believe that our fathers gave birth to us if we already know how that works.

Well moe,

It is certainly not meaningless. However, I do wonder how useful it is(or rather could be) to know something like that.

What reason is there to believe that any writing is the word of God?

I mean, surely we do not believe that this or that book is the word of God simply because it says so, for if that were enough to assent to such a belief, then we would believe all of the ones that make such claims.

So, there must be more to it than that.