[Victoribus Spolia]

If you are now saying you can trust your senses/observations, then you can trust the results you conclude from them.

This doesn't follow at all.

I can observe a table, but I cannot say with absolute certainty it will be there tomorrow just because it was there yesterday.

The observation may be trusted (I am seeing a table currently) but the conclusion (it will be there tomorrow) may not.

They are not necessarily related.

Science now comes into play and most of my posts that you call a fallacy can now be used as factual evidence.

Yeah, most of your posts are and always will be fallacies for very specific reasons.

My position is non-fallacious and infers things that can appropriately and logically inferred without fallacy. Simple as that.

If you can't get past the basics of philosophy like the problems of causation and induction (quite literally philosophy 101), what makes you think you can be an trustworthy judge in my debates with Saeko?

You can't.

You lack the knowledge to debate my position and to stand as a judge over my performance in such disputes.

This is quite evident.

[ingliz]

God

If something exists only if it is perceived (Esse est Percipi), how do we account for the existence of a God when we cannot perceive Him?

God, not being an idea, is not knowable directly.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If something exists only if it is perceived (Esse est Percipi), how do we account for the existence of a God when we cannot perceive Him?

You misquote Berkeley.

Esse est percipi aut percipere

[B0ycey]

This doesn't follow at all.

I can observe a table, but I cannot say with absolute certainty it will be there tomorrow just because it was there yesterday.

The observation may be trusted (I am seeing a table currently) but the conclusion (it will be there tomorrow) may not.

They are not necessarily related.

But who has mentioned tables? Remember I am a immaterialist!!! But from tests that you observe means you can conclude the cause of perception is in the brain. And you say you can now trust your senses and observations. So I win.

If you can't get past the basics of philosophy like the problems of causation and induction (quite literally philosophy 101), what makes you think you can be an trustworthy judge in my debates with Saeko?


You lack the knowledge to debate my position and to stand as a judge over my performance in such disputes.

This is quite evident.

To be honest VS, you don't know my education background. You assume too much. Although, it isn't philosophical. But even if I am this layman you think I am, my opinion is just that. In my opinion you never addressed Saekos points. If you don't like that, tough.

[Victoribus Spolia]

In my opinion you never addressed Saeko points. If you don't like that, tough.

Yes and when I asked how, you failed to show how, and when you presented you own position, it showed ignorance.

I never presumed anything about your formal education, only your philosophical education and I must have been right because you admitted as much.

Case closed.

But who has mentioned tables? Remember I am a immaterialist!!!

Once again, this shows ignorance.

Immaterialism only means you do not believe in matter as a mind-independent substance. A table is a immaterial, its just a percept.

There is no matter in it, there is nothing material about it at all. It is made up of sensations, nothing more.

But the cause and tests that you observe means you can conclude the cause of perception is in the brain.

Now you just sound silly.

And you say you can now trust your senses and observations. I win.

Yes, you can trust your sensations, but the brain has nothing to do with them, so no. You lose. pretty bad actually.

[ingliz]

You misquote Berkeley.

Typical non-answer.

I will ask again.

If something exists only if it is perceived, how do we account for the existence of a God when we cannot perceive Him?

[B0ycey]

Immaterialism only means you do not believe in matter as a mind-independent substance. A table is a immaterial, its just a percept.

There is no matter in it, there is nothing material about it at all. It is made up of sensations, nothing more.

Basically this is what I believe though. Almost down to the letter actually. And I have stated as such numerous times in many threads.

Yes, you can trust your sensations, but the brain has nothing to do with them, so no. You lose. pretty bad actually.

Not really. If you can trust your senses, you can trust their results.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Not really. If you can trust your senses, you can trust their results.

I already demonstrated that this is logically false.

Basically this is what I believe though. Almost down to the letter actually. And I have stated as such numerous times in many threads.

Which is fine, I never said we disagreed on everything, but you cannot claim that percepts are the source or cause of percepts without engaging in circular reasoning or the fallacies I mentioned, so where do they come from? That is the point. If not matter and if not other percepts, and not yourself (but necessarily another mind) then where?

Typical non-answer.

Actually it was an answer, Idealism does not teach that something exists only if it is perceived, it teaches that the only things which exist are that which are perceived or perceiving.


Thus, when you say this crap:

If something exists only if it is perceived,

The questions presumes a falsehood.

IT is neither the position of Berkeley or any Phenomenal Idealist that the only thing that exists is that which is perceived. The position is that the only things that exist are that which are perceived (mental content) and perceivers (minds).

A person's own mind (or any mind for that matter) is know to exist either axiomatically or by necessary inference as it is not an object of perception, but that which perceives such.

God falls under this category. If you note in my argument, God is not claimed to exist on the basis of being an object of thought, but being the necessary originator of all thought.

[B0ycey]

Which is fine, I never said we disagreed on everything, but you cannot claim that percepts are the source or cause of percepts without engaging in circular reasoning or the fallacies I mentioned, so where do they come from? That is the point. If not matter and if not other percepts, and not yourself (but necessarily another mind) then where?

Well, as I said, if you can trust your senses, you can trust your results. Perception is the interaction of mind and energy. So if you can do tests to determine that consciousness is the result of the brain activity (which you can prove through tests), that the senses are the result of brain activity (which you can also test btw) and do simple tests like turning the light on and off that prove something like light is required (cause) in order to perceive an object, then really there is no fallacy. Only opinion what is the table. To me it is just energy and our minds creating the illusion. To you it is God.

[ingliz]

the necessary originator of all thought

Not proven.

If that were true, God causes his own haecceity, being God, to exist.

Consider God's haecceity, the property being God. The property being necessarily exemplified is contained in the essence of this property. So, when God causes his haecceity to exist, he causes the property being necessarily exemplified to be exemplified by his haecceity. Just as God causes being red to be exemplified by the table when he causes it to exist, God causes being God to be exemplified necessarily. However, surely this is incoherent. Here, we have the divine causing his own existence; God is pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. (Davidson 2013)

You lose.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Not proven.

You lose.

I have done that in spades, its in my original debate post, you've failed to address it.

if you can trust your senses, you can trust your results.

How does the FACT that you are looking at your computer (or phone) guarantee with absolute certainty that it will be here tomorrow?

That you are absolutely look at your phone does not mean it will exist absolutely tomorrow; thus, your senses if trustworthy does not necessitate that all your inferences made from those sensations are always valid. The fallacies are what they are and don't apply to the identity of thing, only the inferences made from such.

Perception is the interaction of mind and energy. So if you can do tests to determine that consciousness is the result of the brain activity (which you can prove through tests), that the senses are the result of brain activity (which you can also test btw) and do simple tests like turning the light on and off that prove something like light is required (cause) in order to perceive an object, then really there is no fallacy

All correlations or sequences, not a single cause show there. If claimed as causal is the same fallacy. Please try again.

To me it is just energy and our minds creating the illusion. To you it is God.

Your position is fallacious, and mine is based on valid inferences.

Congrats.

[B0ycey]

Your position is fallacious, and mine is based on valid facts and logical deduction.

Congrats.

[Victoribus Spolia]

[ingliz]

I have done that in spades

Another non-answer.

being the necessary originator of all thought.

Here, we have the divine causing his own existence; God is pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. (Davidson 2013)

God causes being God to be exemplified necessarily.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Here, we have the divine causing his own existence; God is pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. (Davidson 2013)

God causes being God to be exemplified necessarily.

Not an argument.

Another non-answer.

You didn't ask a question, you claimed I didn't prove something, when I did already. You have only refused to address it.

[ingliz]

Not an argument

You claim God is the necessary originator of all thought.

If that were true, God causes his own haecceity, being God, to exist.

God is pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. (Davidson 2013)

This would be an instance of causal circularity.

You lose.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You claim God is the necessary originator of all thought.

If that were true, God causes his own haecceity, being God, to exist.

That doesn't at all follow, that my thoughts originate in the Mind of God requires no circularity regarding God's essence. You are simply confused here.

There is no causal circularity in this argument. At all.

I WIN.

[ingliz]

That doesn't at all follow

Yes, it does.

To cause something to exist is to cause its essence (or, in the terminology of Plantinga 1980, its nature) to be exemplified. Suppose God creates a certain table which has as a part of its essence being red. Then God causes the property being red to be exemplified by the table when he creates it. Consider the property being omnipotent. The property being exemplified by God is contained in its essence. So, God causes the property being exemplified by God to be exemplified by being omnipotent in causing being omnipotent to exist. Similar to the manner with which God causes being red to be exemplified by the table in exemplifying the table's essence, God causes being omnipotent to be exemplified by himself. But, surely God can't cause the property being omnipotent to be exemplified by himself: How can God make himself omnipotent? Furthermore, one might think that God's omnipotence should be causally prior to his causing properties to exist. However, on this occasion it is not. Then, if one does think that God's omnipotence should be causally prior to his causing properties to exist, this would be an instance of causal circularity. This sort of argument will work for other properties like being omniscient or having divine cognitive activity. (Davidson 2013)

[Victoribus Spolia]

To cause something to exist is to cause its essence (or, in the terminology of Plantinga 1980, its nature) to be exemplified. Suppose God creates a certain table which has as a part of its essence being red. Then God causes the property being red to be exemplified by the table when he creates it. Consider the property being omnipotent. The property being exemplified by God is contained in its essence. So, God causes the property being exemplified by God to be exemplified by being omnipotent in causing being omnipotent to exist. Similar to the manner with which God causes being red to be exemplified by the table in exemplifying the table's essence, God causes being omnipotent to be exemplified by himself. But, surely God can't cause the property being omnipotent to be exemplified by himself: How can God make himself omnipotent? Furthermore, one might think that God's omnipotence should be causally prior to his causing properties to exist. However, on this occasion it is not. Then, if one does think that God's omnipotence should be causally prior to his causing properties to exist, this would be an instance of causal circularity. This sort of argument will work for other properties like [i]being omniscient or having divine cognitive activity. (Davidson 2013)

Note in bold.

This where this silly argument fails.

Omnipotence is not something caused or created so this argument is dependent on a non-applicable analogy. Omnipotence is an attribute of God that defines His nature, it is not a created or caused thing. God does not cause His omnipotence, omnipotence is a term that we used to describe His nature as necessarily inferred from reason or from the Sacred Scriptures.

[ingliz]

This where this silly argument fails.

No.

This where your silly semantic argument fails.

'attribute' and 'property' are synonyms.

In any case, omnipotence is an idea..... ex nihilo nihil fit and all that.