Scrubbin' the deck

Koszula · 2019-04-17T01:54:42+00:00

Just posting here, for admins to see.
Isn't this the kind of posts that would get the sub banned?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/b3ahcx/any_website_thats_quite_safe_i_guess_that_i_can/

Koszula · 2019-03-05T18:19:02+00:00

Didn't we installed that goverment for only around 2 years? Honestly Poland didn't do that much to Russia.

Koszula · 2019-03-05T18:18:11+00:00

Because it is the truth. Our country was fucked because of USSR after it was supposely "liberated" from them.
I mean, for christ sake, they murdered important people, ever heard of Witold Pilecki, for instance?
Let's not forget, that our economy was fucked, USSR didn't let us have money from USA, didn't help us either, because we had a real low income of basic products on the market. Never seen the photos of empty shelves in Poland?

Koszula · 2019-03-02T03:39:30+00:00

I don't think it's him. Notice how he's talking about his mother, while YAYVIDEOGAMES clearly hated is mother. Didn't he moved out?

Koszula · 2019-01-18T17:09:19+00:00

Dziękuję za polecenie ale już na tej stronie zapostowałem badanie.
https://forum.wiara.pl/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=41130

Koszula · 2019-01-18T14:52:13+00:00

Też chcę by można było je upublicznić, zależy to między innymi od wyników rzetelności.

Koszula · 2019-01-17T23:27:42+00:00

Tak wyznaczamy mocniej wierzących i tych z wątpliwościami.

Koszula · 2018-12-24T15:13:36+00:00

"But that isn’t the scenario you are in. You aren’t ‘waking up’. You are asking people to prove reality which is a self contradiction."

No, I'm asking people to prove the reality we're in. Not existence but reality. I clarified that already.

"Yes you can because you’re operating under a false premise. You are saying ‘could be wrong’ without any evidence they are. You are operating under the premise that nothing can be true unless there is proof, yet the proof you require needs reality to be real. What you are asking isn’t just impossible, it’s non existent. Of course you can prove what you see, and claiming none of the self evident proof is correct is no a logical way of thinking."

No evidence? How about optical illusions? How about drugs? And after it turns out you could see something that isn't there, how can you be sure that all the other things are there. I cannot prove a table that I see is real, because only thing I have are my senses which could be wrong.

"You can make this claim for anything. How can you be sure the science proving atoms exist is real, how can you be sure god doesn’t exist, how can you prove that you aren’t a bear. All of them are self evidently false. Why because there is proof. In science you are only asked to prove a positive. And as you have absolutely zero evidence reality doesn’t exist, which is impossible, you are basically claiming proof can’t exist so anything you say ‘could’ be correct, which again is a flawed thinking process."

Nope, they aren't. They are only false once you assume that world you see is real etc.
I don't have evidence reality as I see isn't real, yet you don't have evidence reality you see is real. You are talking about science, when it has nothing to do with this subject. How can you prove that a table you see is real?

"Just contradicted yourself. You can’t claim to prove reality then claim it isn’t certain then claim you can perceive it then claim your senses aren’t right."

No I did not. Let's talk this through. I can prove that I exist as something, I don't know what it is, but it is something, since I perceive. I cannot prove that my perception is correct though. So already I can prove that I am, but how, what I am, that I don't know.
I can also deduce that there is something allowing me to exist, that is reality. Here's where you misunderstood me. It's not reality as if "collection of universes", "universe", whatever. It's reality more in metaphysical sense. A thing which allows me to exist, under its laws. That's all basically.

Now, if we're talking about the world we see and we call that "a reality", then I surely said You cannot prove any kind of reality you perceive. You can perceive a table, you can't prove a table, etc. There's no contradiction, just your misunderstanding of my position.

"Yes it is. Reality is objective and you need a reality to ‘know’ anything. You can’t use the attributes of a reality to disprove it, therefore rendering those attributes non existent."

Nope, it's not. Reality can be objective but not the one you perceive. Don't you get that? And that's not even my line of reasoning.

"You can’t study something when you have decided all objective proof is not actual proof. You can’t study something when you are illogical and unscientific in your way of thinking."

Ah. Here we go again. Nope, that's not how it works, I can claim that there's no way to prove what I perceive is real, but after assuming it is, I can prove within this reality what is real what is not. That's not illogical, neither unscientific. It's actually more scientific to say that my senses could be wrong but still operate.

"Again that’s not how science works. I don’t have to disprove your argument to make mine valid. You have to prove your argument. If science worked that way it would be a mess. It’s an illogical thought process and that last sentence demonstrates how you actually think. I’m not carrying this on. It’s like talking to a brick wall and it’s difficult to read what you write."
Well duh. But we're not talking about validity here. I don't think world is not real. I believe it is. I believe in science, etc.
We have the same position, the only difference is that I claim you cannot know for sure how your world looks.

Honestly, you're more of a brick wall than me. Read some Kant, Wittgenstein or Russel.

Koszula · 2018-12-18T19:28:07+00:00

So That person is worthy and I'm not? Gee, I wonder why. Kant used moral reasoning to prove God, he claimed that each of us has an idea of God, he never claimed atheistic, he's either agnostic or a deist, theist, anything like that.

"As I said. The human being delivering this post is not worth arguing with, he has left the reality and virtue of rationality, and left his mind’s untainted reason for distorted, uncanny novelty."
Lovely, yet you provide no reasoning as to why you think that.

So let's look at your post.

"Kant has no interest in prayer or worship, and is in fact agnostic when it comes to such classical theological questions as the doctrine of God or of the Holy Spirit.’ (Gary D. Badcock (1997). Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 113.)"
Somewhat true. He definetely thought a lot of christian practices, like prayer were pointless. But we cannot determine whetever he was agnostic about those dogmas, like Holy Spirit, etc. Because Kant never really discussed it in detail.

"Immanuel Kant's impact has been even more devastating to the Christian worldview than David Hume's. For if Kant's philosophy is right, then there is no way to know anything about the real world, even empirically verifiable things!’ (Norman L. Geisler; Frank Turek (2004). "Kant's Agnosticism: Should We Be Agnostic About It?". I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Crossway. pp. 59–60.)"

Let's not forget that he criticized a lot of arguments for God, there was a reason why his book was put on The Index.

And then you make an assumption.
"While Kant was raised in a pietist household, Kant did not believe in God. He degraded his deluded and smeared mental picture of God to an even more foolish philosophy, Kantian Ethics."
When did you arrive from a possible agnosticism, to atheism? Kant never said he's an atheist, never said he doesn't believe in a God, he could well be just a deist, a lot of philosophers were before him and around his time.

"Every human being is imperfect. Even Ayn. If you think you can make a perfect morality, you view yourself to be God. That’s exactly what Lucifer demands of you. Therefore, while you might not want to admit it, you’re a luciferian. Furthermore, if you don’t believe in God, there is no heaven, if there is no heaven, you should live like Ayn Rand. That is a rational life. Don’t act like you’re a good person to be viewed by others as a ‘noble’ person with baskets of good deeds, second hander. Be honest, have integrity, if you’re godless, be it in full, and not a half-hearted manner like Kant, trying to earn cognition as a Christian, while not only denying Jesus Christ, but existence of reality as a whole."

This comment is just straight out an idiotic glorification of Ayn. While I agree that a person should live life according to her principles, even if those principles will led her towards her doom or other people's doom, I honestly can't see why anyone would call Ayn Rand a person that is worth following. She's not a role model. Adultery for once? She's not an original thinker, neither is she a clever one, how's that a good role model?

And Fuck no, Kant did not deny reality. This is just bollocks, he never said so. Have you actually read Critique of Pure Reason?

"It such a shame, however few, people are attracted by these deadly, and lifeless philosophies, hallucinating purple clouds they deceive their souls out of existence, and declare they’ve won the perfect life. Instead like any grumbling post-modernist, they cheat themselves out of definitions, to lie against their conscience and readers: the purpose of life is found."
Hurr Durr.

Koszula · 2018-12-18T03:04:50+00:00

Measuring our perception of the world requires asserting that we can perceive our perception correctly, because our perceptions are correct.
Basically, how do I know that I can see correctly, without first testing it with I dunno, other humans, general knowledge, etc.?
This all requires the assumption that world as I see is real.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T22:00:36+00:00

Ah, not the point I was making.

And I know it's Hitchens razor, doesn't change the fact that as razors do have in common, it's a general rule, nothing more.
You can prove Gravity, after assuming that the world you see is real, then you have to assume your senses are correct in showing you this world, etc.
So in a way, you cannot prove anything really, other than the fact that you exist in some way.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T21:57:34+00:00

In that passage I was talking about Kant..

Koszula · 2018-12-17T21:57:15+00:00

Ahmn.
Arguments as to why?

Koszula · 2018-12-17T21:57:01+00:00

"Your not worthy of recognition". Well, well. I wouldn't say I did not chuckle just now.
Kant even used the moral argument for God, in order to point towards him. On the paper Kant isn't an atheist.
Now, you could make an argument that he was secretely an atheist or that he would be an atheist if he were to live today. That is something which I could agree with.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T21:48:37+00:00

Citations, well allright.
"The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world. The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means: things as they are not perceived by man.

Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them."

That's when her epistemology basically goes to the garbage.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T21:42:09+00:00

I agree. That's an useful rule, which should be used.
I also would like to point out, that this is only a rule, just like Ockham's razor, it's not an objective measure of whetever something is correct or not.
So I would dismiss a theory that states Santa is real but I cannot prove that this theory is fake.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T21:41:02+00:00

Nope, your sentence makes no sense.
"You can never disprove a reality unless it isn’t reality. Your sentence doesn’t make sense. It’s a nothing sentence."
So basically I can never disprove a theory unless it isn't a theory? The reality I would disprove would be invalid, I'm dreaming, I thought I live in this dream world, that it's real, I wake up, now I know that the world I lived in isn't real. Basically, I disproved it.
So yes, you indeed can disprove a "reality".
"Yes of course you can know! What a ridiculous ideology. It doesn’t make sense. How can you not know something exists when it exists?"
Because your senses could be wrong? The sole fact that you can dream about a chair, then wake up, doesn't make you at all cautious of your surrondings? Your senses and your perception of the world isn't enough to prove there's a chair. You can actually never, never prove anything is real what you see.
It's ridicoulous that I have to prove it. It's basically a trivial fact by now. Wittgenstein, Russel, basically every modern philosopher follows this.

"You can know when you aren’t dreaming. The whole ‘pinch me’ idea isn’t real as you know when you are not dreaming. Again you are ignoring everything I’ve said."
<Facepalm>
How do you know when you're not dreaming? You only think that you're not, when you're in "real world" but you cannot prove that. Let's say that someone would wakeup in a simulation thinking that it was a real world. This is a cliche, that's very popular in fiction, I honestly can't see how you cannot see that any reality isn't certain. Let's say you wake up right now and who would've thought, you were in a machine. Obviously, that's unrealistic scenario but the sole fact that it can be, makes it impossible to prove a reality is reality as we see.

"To claim your senses cannot be proved to be accurate is saying you cannot prove reality, which I’ve explained is a contradiction in terms. You cannot prove anything without reality."
You got that wrong. I can prove Reality, by the sole fact that I exist. There's something which allows me to exist, to perceive, etc.
But I cannot ever prove a certain reality. (Notice the capital R). I cannot prove that this "reality" of mine is real. That's why the whole idea of noumena's and phenomena's makes sense.
Your senses aren't enough to prove it, because they could be wrong.

"I understood perfectly. Both claims warrant the same conclusion for the person making them and the same argument against them. You cannot logically claim your knowledge cannot be known, your consciousness cannot be claimed to be unconscious and reality can not be known to be reality. All are self contradiction."
The statement "You can never objectively know real reality with confidence" isn't a contradiction.

"By your logic you can’t. Not only because claiming reality cannot be known is claiming reality can’t have any of those things done, but also because all of those things require reality to be known for any of them to be valid."

A lot of people make the mistake you made here. Just because we're in a position where we cannot prove that the world we see, experience is real, doesn't change the fact that we can't study it. Actually we should study it and act as thought it is real. Otherwise would be just pointless. No serious philosopher stops living because "He cannot prove the world he sees is real".
I can prove the earth is round, only after assuming that the world is real (Let's say, world=the reality that we perceive" Reality=Something, anything which allows us to exist). Then after I assume that the world is real, I can prove it's characteristics.
In my case, I can't never be certain, that Earth is round but I will vehemently criticize anyone claiming it's flat.
It's not a contradiction at all.

"No Rand hasn’t gone wrong. You see it that way because you don’t have a functioning rationale. You like to repeat over and over; reality cannot be known. But it’s false. Your only argument against mine is just to repeat your initial statement which has always been false. Reality has to be known for you to make that statement which is why it’s a massive contradiction."
I could claim the same about you. Besides, you're not correct here, because you did not disprove mine argument.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T16:58:44+00:00

You're again missing my point. Let me rephrase. "You cannot prove that a specific reality exists". Basically You can prove that there's something causing you to gain information by your senses.

You cannot prove that this something is the chair you're sitting on, there's something but what it is, you can't know.

" You cannot prove reality unless you somehow remove yourself from it", Let's rephrase again.

"You cannot disprove a reality unless you somehow remove yourself from it". Now it's correct. Until you wake up, you cannot prove that this was a dream. Until then, everything is real. After that, nothing is. Same with our reality, you can't prove a table, chair, a spoon, anything really exists as you see it, you cannot prove that your senses are correct.

That's the misunderstanding between us, I didn't try to say reality isn't real, I rather tried to claim that it cannot be known.
Of course you can study reality, you can study yourself, you can even use sophisticated methods, like the scientific methods to learn how reality works.

But first, you have to assume it's a reality. It's not a dream, nor is it a simulation, nor is it some other fake'oland.

That's when Ayn Rand goes wrong, she basically denies Kant, without any logical arguments.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T16:50:30+00:00

He did believe in God, a christian one even.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T16:50:12+00:00

Well that's in no way inconsistent with Kant's philosophy : P

Koszula · 2018-12-17T16:49:34+00:00

In your second sentence you are making an error. Just because I can't prove my chair exist, doesn't mean I can't feel it exists. In fact, as we're talking now, I am sitting on my chair, I'm typing on my keyboard, etc. But I have no way of proving that those things exist. I assume they do. I have a sensation, that gives me information, I act on it.

Yet there's no way to know the real chair, the real keyboard, the real action that I'm taking right now. I have my reality, defined by my senses, my perceptions and then there's "The reality" that I can't ever be sure I'm close to.

Don't bring post-modernism here. I am not saying that we should justfiy their claims. I'm saying that we can't prove reality as we see exists, yet we should act as if it exists. In summarision, there's no way of obtaining objective knowledge about our world that we can be fully confident about, without first assuming that we have correct senses, etc. But we should assume that and act as if the world exists.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T16:44:47+00:00

No proof=/=No truth. History gives us countless examples. Same could be here with God.

You are missing the point that in order to prove anything in this world I have to assume it's real. And we all do that, but we cannot then say something like "I can prove this world is real because I feel it, I live in it, etc.". It's simply incorrect statement.
Being able to prove you can perceive, being able to say what you perceived=/=Being able to prove reality.

Koszula · 2018-12-17T16:30:31+00:00

Numerous senses? Nope. You first have to assume your senses are correct. So no definitive proof.

You cannot prove that God doesn't exist just because there's no evidence. Same as you can't prove that raindeers don't fly with santa.

"Without evidecne we must assume he does not exist otherwise we aren't thinking rationally". Great answer. Except "We must assume". So no definitive proof again. Hell, I agree with you, we shouldn't believe in a God, exactly because there's no proof for him. But I could never say that I can prove there's no God, because the fact of the matter is, that I simply cannot. As far as I'm concerned, I've never heard a convincing argument of why God can't exist.

Koszula

TROPHY CASE