|
Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/20/2011 5:09:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Zonie:
Azonier is DEFINED as a being such, that if he exists, you have no nose. And you already agreed with that. So, by definition, if he exists, you have no nose.
I quote:
quote:
I could see that if such a being does exist, then my nose would not exist.
Are you changing your answers continuously?
Well, it's not a matter of changing answers here. What you've quoted above is only a partial quote (and it took me a few minutes to find it because, for some reason, you chose not to attribute it by citing the post number in this thread). It was post #188 in this thread.
What I said in that post was this:
quote:
Okay, within the limits of your question and definition of Azonier, then I could see that if such a being does exist, then my nose would not exist. As an agnostic, I would still go with the default answer of "I don't know" if there's nothing else to go on.
By putting it in context, it changes the quote a bit, since I was just saying that I could see your point. I was stating that I understood your definition and the parameters you've set up. But it doesn't mean that I agreed with it. As I said, I would still go with the default answer of "I don't know" if there's nothing else to go on, which is obviously the case here.
quote:
And it does not MATTER if you consider or not the question of Azonier when you prove the existence of your nose. Because of the dependency stated before.
Note that I am not entering on the matter of what you notice or you do not notice.
But that's the whole crux of the issue. The question is whether or not I have a nose. The only way to know this is through observation, but according to the rules and parameters you've set up, observation is not considered reliable. So, as I said from the very beginning, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM! I've said this several times already, and I haven't changed my position at all.
quote:
So:
* Do you retract from the quote I made? If you do, then we will have to start all over again because you have changed your answers so often that I do no longer know what you say and what you do not say. So, if this is the case, you can start right on answering the OP and we start a new game.
I don't believe that I've changed my answers. I've given you answers, then you've come back with more questions asking for explanations, which I've tried my best to provide. I've tried to state my position several times. Then you said you didn't even bother to read my last post because you didn't have time. I've asked you for clarification and for you to get to the point of where all this is going. If you're trying to stack the game and make up the rules as you go along, then it's not much of a game. It might be better if there was an objective third party to act as referee before we continue, since you're acting as both participant and referee.
quote:
* If not - how the hell can they be independent asserts if "if such a being does exist, then my nose would not exist"?
Because you've stated that Azonier gives us a substitute nose when he takes our real nose, and that there's no way to tell, from empirical observation, whether there's actually a nose or not. This is part of your definition, and you further stated that Azonier's substitute nose = "no nose," as if to imply that it's some imaginary "Matrix" nose or something like that. Kind of like the line "There is no spoon" from the same movie. I thought that's where you were going with it. I could see what you were saying, but there's still some creative logic on your part which leads to the conclusion that "perceived nose" = "no nose."
So, even if I agreed with the basic idea that if Azonier exists, then my nose would not exist, that would only refer to the nose that I was born with, not the substitute nose that was given to me by Azonier. But that's a separate matter from a simple observation of whether or not I have a nose. You're trying to reverse the logic by saying that, if I have a nose, then Azonier does not exist, but according to your own definitions, empirical observation is not acceptable.
So, here it is:
- If Azonier does not exist, then I have a nose.
- If Azonier exists, then (observed nose) = (no nose)
However, if going purely by observation:
- If Azonier does not exist, then I have an observed nose.
- If Azonier exists, then I have an observed nose.
Given that reality is only what we observe it to be, it's impossible to tell whether my observed nose = (nose) or (no nose). It could be either one, and that's where pure logic leads us.
|
|
|
|
