Yours is apparently based on creating strawmen.
Metaphysical belief based on lack of evidence...not quite a religion, hence my smiley, but fairly close to it, Luci. I see it hit a nerve, hence the -1. It's easier to do that, than to reason things through.
It's not circular reasoning. A mind is required to be capable of thought. Since he was capable of thought, he has a mind.
"He (a mind) was capable of thought" is premised on his being a mind, capable of thought. Utterly circular. Feel free to -1 me for pointing it out.
If I was citing him, I'd have written the Latin phrase with quotes.
I never said you were formally
citing him using MLA or something. You're referring to his argument. That's "citing".
Even so, you agreed that it was NOT his methodology here:
It's his stated
methodology. That he fails to follow it is another matter.
My conclusion: I exist.
My premise: I perceive things.
Are you being deliberately dense or something? Is it because you still have a fever? What is it? You're smarter than this, Luci. Look at what you just wrote:
I perceive things.This sentence includes the premise that you exist
. Just like if I say, "Joe delivered the mail", that includes the premise that Joe exists. Or, "I am typing on a forum" includes the premise that I exist.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Perception is not something we can experience, it is a function, if you will, of the mind. We perceive things. This in itself does not require a mind, but awareness of this fact does.Is it
awareness, or is it something else that we don't understand? Boom. Descartes-fail. Just like before. Unless we assume things about the way the universe works, like that perceptions are things that minds do and become aware of.
I'm not sure if you're trolling/stupid or if this part of your post actually serves to disprove anything.
I am demonstrating the problem with "proofs" as applied to reality. I don't actually doubt this stuff, but then I'm not the one whose world-view includes this stupid, ridiculous idea of real-world proofs. That's you. This is your
problem, not mine. And you're hand-waving it away instead of dealin with it or adjusting your world-view to be more rational.
We are not starting from a state of zero knowledge. We know that we are capable of perception. That is the most basic of truths (in this argument).
Yeah, he failed to see his own assumptions. A common failing in a lot of arguments. What he thought of as "knowledge" was just another assumption. His goal was to remove assumptions, to doubt everything he could, but he lacked the imagination to go all the way. His proof rests entirely on the failure of his imagination. And now on yours.
You're the one who requested a concrete definition for existence. I explained that I lacked the language to define it, but that it was definable. You agreed, so I asked what you would define it as to see if we could agree on that. How is that a red herring?
I was asking it rhetorically, to point out that our concept of "existence" is itself a buried premise in the argument. Is it accurate? Can we prove that it's accurate? Can we doubt that it's accurate? Yes? Then let's remove it, and see where the argument goes once we do. And where it goes is nowhere
, once it's done properly, comprehensively, and honestly.
"Hitler killed (some) Jews". Past.
"You are misrepresenting (the) atheists". Present.
See the difference?
Yes, the difference is in the word you decided to read into each sentence. In our case, you chose the one that made the least sense. What was your motive for doing so?