Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:
1. Time is a physical concept, so it's resultant of sense data judgement.  So, in that context, it too could be "wrong".  And I do not see how that would mean I cannot trust my own reasoning, then.  When I was denying (A), I was denying the "living" part (as in, bodily).  Although, I might be pressed to think that "I" don't necessarily exist, either, although that may depend on what I mean by "I".  Also, Bertrand Russel disagreed with Descartes on that point ;)

2. Yes, that's correct.  Although, sense data could be used nontheless to support any view anyways, so it doesn't really matter, as I maintain that sense judgement is arbitrary. 

1.  But like I said, even without trusting any sensory data, you still remember receiving the sensory data.  So if you don't believe that time has passed, then everything prior to this very instant is a false memory (not just true memory of false data), and indeed any thought you happen to be thinking was constructed as part of it.  In fact, not only can you never construct any logical argument (due to your disagreement with C) but you cannot trust any preconstructed logical argument because if your memories are false then whatever agency falsified them may have left holes in your thesis.  Anything you aren't thinking specifically about this very instant is an untrustable blind spot. 

2.  No, I disagree.  Sensory data cannot reasonably support all theories, as some do not adequately explain it.

1. Of course, we've all had memories we thought we're true that turned out they weren't, right (Which is another argument against empiricism, as judgements on sense data, when compared to other judgements, are being compared via memory)?  Now, about the logic objection: logic is not dependent on whether or not we remember the premesis (how do you pluralize that?) correctly, because when we get the conclusion part of a logical argument, and if our memory had suddenly changed to a different premise, then the conclusion would follow in light of that premise.

2. By explain sensory data, I take it that you mean incorporate it, right?  And I've said our judgements on sense data are totally arbitrary (apart from consistency), so any judgement you make could be made to fit any theory. Like the Matrix: "Everything is a simulated computer experience, and everything I sense is made to perfectly fit what would be sensed otherwise.  I sense this and detect nothing unusual" would make perfect use of sense data judgement. 

1.  But if you are working on the tenth step of a logical problem, and you didn't actually do the first nine steps but only think you did, there is no assurance that the entity behind this deception did them correctly.  So the logic is not dependent on you actually doing the work, but the logic may be invalid. 

2.  But if you posit "the world is exactly as I sense it and the Moon is made of green cheese" and you go to the Moon and it is not in fact made of cheese of any color at all, then sense data does not support that view.  I think you are blinding yourself to all the nonsense views precisely because they are inconsistent with empirical evidence, but when you say "ANY theory" you have to mean it.