re: #707 Salamantis

re: #707 Salamantis

Those who reject logic itself place themselves in the untenable position of not being able to argue for or against anything, because it is by means of logic that all sound and valid arguments proceed.

Good thing I never claimed otherwise then, eh?

So - this refutes my point that he is preaching to the choir (those who have already accepted logic above faith) and that if he wants to get the faithful to accept logic as valid, he needs to provide the validation of it?

You have simply added another straw man to the growing pile.

And, as has been noted before, faith can only obtain in the absence of evidence; the moment evidence is proferred, one is no longer speaking of faith, but of (probable and provisional) knowledge.

And again, another straw man. So it is quite unclear how you can logically come to the conclusion that my “objection fails, on both logical and empirical grounds” when it is you who have failed to even address my objection.

Plus, those who reject the veracity of sense perception reject their own histories

Again, then I am glad I never tried to argue the senses are invalid. Of course those who have argued throughout history that the senses distort, do not contact ‘true’ reality, are inferior to other non-sensory forms of awareness, etc ad nauseum, would claim they do not reject sense perception but merely rely on something superior to it (ala a sixth sense) - and that they are sorry you are apparently incapable of accessing it. In other words, they would consider your assertion to be the ravings of a blind man who claims sight doesn’t exist because HE doesn’t see.

Put simply, you have created another straw man. I agree that those who reject the validity of the senses imperil their lives. I have just pointed out that if your goal is to try to convince them of its validity, then you need to provide the validation of it. And I have simply pointed out that such validation was not provided in the video.

If you claim that such validation was provided, then you need to provide the proof of that claim. Or if you claim such validation is not required to get someone to accept the validity of logic over faith, then you need to identify what is required to get someone to accept the validity of logic over faith. Otherwise, it would appear you are simply agreeing with me that the producer of the video is simply preaching to the choir (ie to those who already accept logic over faith).