Fwd: Page 4) Re: reddit/com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec (**G***rave*) (formatt!ng om^tted)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

LXXQLa-5n5w#v5Ok3_l1Opc: I%am\^/priori;VfsS-0ffVyw

unread,
Apr 28, 2016, 4:32:15 AM4/28/16
to cxmpl...@googlegroups.com

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rp-discuss/OHtP-cNy5jM/asBH3Q3brLgJ
On Monday, October 13, 2014 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-6, LXXQLa-5n5w#v5Ok3_l1Opc: I%am\^/priori;VfsS-0ffVyw wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/user/Pt-Ir_parsec/?count=75&after=t1_cl288ra

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -2 points 6 days ago 

You cannot show me proof against a priori knowledge;

"

You have been told, O man, what is good,

and what the Lord requires of you:

Only to do the right and to love goodness,

and to walk humbly with your God.

"-[Micah 6:8]

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -2 points 6 days ago 

/u/MetaHeel (in full),

Can you show me a proof of a priori knowledge?

I affirm that I am my++ Proof of a priori knowledge; "$ave yourself 'cause I can't Save ya"-Lil Wayne, "('all "red" empire') Moment".http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/2hk4te/us_constitution_dictatorship_inconsistency/cktr6tc

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josiah_Royce&action=history

"The limits of evolution: and other essays illustrating the metaphysical ... - George Holmes Howison - Google Books"

http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -4 points 6 days ago 

/u/LurkBeast (in full),

DA BA DUP DUPA OUP-OUP-OUP EE HURI IRA WIWI DAPADU HU WA DUKI DUWA DIWI DOKIDOKE HUMIKU AKU DAKA REI

DA BA DUP DUPA OUP-OUP-OUP EE HURI IRA WIWI DAPADU HU WA DUKI DUWA DIWI DOKIDOKE HUMIKU AKU DAKA REI

A DEI UHAKU NAKU AKU NAKU POKUNAKU E UENU EKO EH EH EH A-DI-DE AIDUE KAMONE AH AH AH A DEI UHAKA NAKA POKUNAKU HANUAKU E UENU EKO EH EH EH GANIKO HIWI DI MORE MOOORE

DA BA DUP DUPA OUP-OUP-OUP EE HURI IRA WIWI DAPADU HU WA DUKI DUWA DIWI DOKIDOKE HUMIKU AKU DAKA REI

DA BA DUP DUPA OUP-OUP-OUP EE HURI IRA WIWI DAPADU HU WA DUKI DUWA DIWI DOKIDOKE HUMIKU AKU DAKA REI

Congrats!upvote : Wisest Response North of Silence yet!!

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -3 points 6 days ago 

/u/skizmo (in full),

Dude .. this shit isn't gonna work. What happened to you ? Did your mother do too much acid when you where born, or did your father abuse you soo much that you can't think clearly these days ?

"challenge", ibid:

a summons

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -7 points 6 days ago 

/u/TooManyInLitter (in full),

The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge;

This presupposes the existence of the soul, an issue (the existence of the soul) that has not (yet) had the burden of proof adequately met.

If I use a priori knowledge of the soul (mind-body dualism), then my position is the null hypothesis that {the soul does not exist} as I am not a presuppositionalist towards the soul or towards any supernatural related artifact/entity. Without justification or support to reject the null hypothesis, and justification or support to accept the alternate hypothesis that {the soul does exist}, presented, then the quoted claim/assertion by the OP:

"The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge;"

is fallacious and, essentially, meaningless.

I remain but eternally-unassailed."...PA308..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -9 points 6 days ago 

/u/skizmo (in full),

You're not saying anything. You are just copying somebody else without context.

challenge:

from "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary", 1975, @ entry2 :

2 ... b : an invitation to compete in a ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -6 points 6 days ago 

/u/Zamboniman (in full),

The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge

Are you posting this as an example of a lack of understanding of logic?

"challenge"

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -8 points 6 days ago 

/u/deten (in full),

So what you are saying is that there is a soul and by default we assume it is true? And if I don't agree it is my responsibility to prove you wrong?

I said, and am saying:

The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge;"

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -6 points 6 days ago 

/u/skizmo (in full),

catchy title..

Also, just dumping some shit in here is not how it works.

addressing in reverse ord:

[Sidebar here] Post your debate challenge and see if any atheists take you up on it.

Rules:

This will conclude the listing of the rules.

NOTE: If you want more rules, I suggest r/DebateReligion.

"Nicki Minaj - Beez In The Trap (Explicit) ft. 2 Chainz - YouTube"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmZvOhHF85I&feature=related

AMA: I am a reincarnated being that was sent to the world to institute a new global political system. by whenImdoneIcangohomein DebateReligion

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec 1 point 6 days ago 

reincarnaT /u/whenImdoneIcangohome (in full, 10 days ago, post edit),

I have a feeling that you'll be glad to know there is no yahweh. :)

if only the misunderstood could so easily be relieved of duty,,,

Your "blemish(es)", reincarnaT, do not in no wise lessen you. Only, the scent of the holocaust of a "newb" smells "better" than fartS re-Fried.and that's the unfailing unanimity of dewPure Jurism.Quality does - wor~ da /u/JanAnders43 - by aguaNotAlone g3~ hyE; ?=T

Glory be; by Pt-Ir_parsecin GoodVsEvil

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 6 days ago 

H%wdy /r/GoodVsEvil ,

+wlog# b3 w/Y4.

Let Peace be upon a "community for 6 years"!

And mad Grace to $XXL-mod /u/Anjillea0 Comment 1 Link |Karma|

[sidebar, completemente]Was it the Angelic You on your shoulder that won out, or the Devilish You on opposing shoulder that prevailed? Good vs Evil forces at work....?

<Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary^The ^Year ^oF^1975 ^Our ^Lord>

prevail: {snip}\ vi [ME prevailen, fr. L praevalere, fr. prae- pre- + valere to be strong - more at WEILD] *1 :** to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority : TRIUMPH 2 : to be or become effective or effectual 3 : to use persuasion successfully <~ed on him to sing> 4 : to be frequent : PREDOMINATE <the west winds that ~ in the mountains> 5 : to be or continue in use or fashion : PERSIST <a custom that still~*s~> syn see INDUCE

A1: "Future - I Won (Explicit) ft. Kanye West ": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2VrxrGcWl8

Au: c/o The Phenomena of BirtH @ sign+e\e/e|ee.com/watch?v=HtXOVKNazY?

What is a soul? by Shaboziin DebateAChristian

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec 1 point 7 days ago 

/u/Shabozi,

This is the reason I created this post. I asked for a definition of soul and the very first word you used to define it is hard to define.

How can something that is non physical exist?

I just replied to /u/missing_7 above, and mentioned my intent to notify you as well:

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/2hsm66/what_is_a_soul/cl1lue4

I'm not really looking to get into a debate, and certainly won't provoke it with the likes of "how can something that is physical exist?" ;-) , or "you mean like the mathematicians Pi?" :-) , but, I do want to jump in with a shout-out to my fave (academic) philosopher here, that you have the opportunity to benefit somethinK like I myself have. You can study what George Holmes Howison has to say in proof of his soul for yourself, but the word you are looking for here is idea / ideal / ideality. And the distinction between phenomena and noumena.

I am an a priori complex (and plural) Living i'dea. One can be assured that phenomena demand noumena. And that noumena must be "personal"; and that personality demands reciprocity, thus pluralism. But to put you to the (irreproachable) crux of the issue, at p.308 of The Limits of Evolution:

The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge; for so long as these remain free from suspicion, there can be no real question as to what they finally imply.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

and, just so you don't run off thinking him an evolution denier, at p.41:

Issuing from the noumenal being of mind, evolution has its field only in the world of the mind's experiences, -- "inner" and "outer," physical and psychic; or, to speak summarily, only in the world of phenomena. But there, it is indeed universal and strictly necessary.

also, though you may at first revolt at the context, at p.54:

Let science say its untrammelled say upon man the physical, the physiological, or the experimentally psychological; upon man the body and man the sensory consciousness, - these are all doubtless under the law of evolution issuing from man the Rational Soul."

[Rapid edit]

What is a soul? by Shaboziin DebateAChristian

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec 1 point 7 days ago 

/u/missing_7,

[O.P. /u/Shabozi] do you have any evidence that a 'soul' exists?

I personally don't.

Your response is super funny to me, maybe you'll get a laugh too:

[permanent link to current revision] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=628120082#Human_Immortality:_Its_Positive_Argument

and, on the serious tip, if you appreciate the resource anywhere near as much as I do, ... Top-notch (Christ upholding) philosophy, have a look.

I'll give a quick post, below, to /u/Shabozi as well.

Best,

A good article on the dangers of "relationship with God" language. X-post /r/Christianity. by strangelycutlemonin ExistentialChristian

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec 0 points 8 days ago 

I think these are great questions to discuss.

"T.I. - Live Your

valuable in itself.

Life [feat. Rihanna] (Video) - YouTube":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koVHN6eO4Xg&feature=fvwrel

[Reddit]you are doing that too much. try again in 8 minutes.

"Regina Spektor- Après Moi (Studio Version)":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbeHq1CLqJ8

"All Of The Lights":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfFfqiYLp0

La Roux - "Bulletproof":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk8eJh4i8Lo

"Ludacris - Stand Up - YouTube":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8mk0uzYGTc

A good article on the dangers of "relationship with God" language. X-post /r/Christianity. by strangelycutlemonin ExistentialChristian

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec 1 point 8 days ago 

"▶ Linkin Park x Steve Aoki - A LIGHT THAT NEVER COMES (Official Music Video) - YouTube":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToHo29kD9Go


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages