Should that which cannot be rationally defended be renounced?

[classical_hero]

I find this opinion quite rare. At the end of the day, the blood is on your hands.

You have been caught redhanded with that pun.

 

[aneeshm]

Ooh I can do this.

You state that without consciousness, you are dead. I am not dead therefore I am conscious.

You are implicitly accepting me as an authority. That cannot be correct. Please start from scratch, and THEN prove that you are conscious.

And anyway, the "die" was just a word, because physical death may not necessarily be coincident with the cessation of consciousness. "Die" here refers to ceasing to exist as a perceiver.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You are implicitly accepting me as an authority.

He was also putting words in your mouth. You never said that lack of consciousness leads to death.

 

[Swedishguy]

Reounce whatever you want. It's a personal decision.

 

[Mise]

You have been caught redhanded with that pun.

I'm sure it won't be too tough to cut through the meat behind your argument. You clearly have a bone to pick with me; even so, I have no beef with you.

 

[mrt144]

i cant defend my love of Van Halen.

 

[Swedishguy]

I can't defend my love for Wyverns, Knubb, Persians, Random Persians and Berserkers.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well? If one cannot rationally defend something using logic should they renounce it as false?

No, they should not. Especially with religion.

 

[Bill3000]

Well? If one cannot rationally defend something using logic should they renounce it as false?

Because that is pretty much impossible to do for all cases.

All of those can be "defended" with logic except god.

In reality, it's literally the opposite of what you said. God can be rationally defended through theology if you have some core assumptions. God's existance itself has problems, though; but the philosophical implications can be easily defended. The rest are all based on appeals to emotion, and explanations thereof are based on examining why people do that, not justifying a specific instance of it.

Otherwise you would have to say that math can't be rationally defended because you cannot prove that a given system of math is true within the system itself, if the system is consistent.

 

[classical_hero]

I'm sure it won't be too tough to cut through the meat behind your argument. You clearly have a bone to pick with me; even so, I have no beef with you.

That is a load of bull, and you know it.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You are implicitly accepting me as an authority. That cannot be correct. Please start from scratch, and THEN prove that you are conscious.

And anyway, the "die" was just a word, because physical death may not necessarily be coincident with the cessation of consciousness. "Die" here refers to ceasing to exist as a perceiver.

I proved that I was conscious by disproving the opposite. Of course if you don't have to die if you don't have consciousness then it doesn't really matter if you are consciousness or not and you can safely reject it.

 

[Phlegmak]

Attempt to do so then. I for one will renounce poetry.

Here you go:

• Love
• Beauty
• Inner Peace
• Music
• Poetry
• God

Love: Evolutionary development in the brains of mammals that is an evolutionary advantage. Without love, mothers don't raise their children so well. We'll never know what a female cat feels about her children, but we do know what female humans (and male humans) feel towards their children. Love makes the children grow up better, so it's clearly an evolutionary advantage.
Beauty: An appreciation of beauty is common in the animal world; for example, birds. It is generally accepted that female birds mate with the prettiest males. For example, ducks and peacocks. The concept of "beauty" among humans is simple. Humans have, through their genetics but more importantly social upbringing, have developed an appreciation for beauty. Things simply look pleasing to the eye. Or to the ear. Things are simply pleasing to the senses.
Inner peace: People sometimes feel calm.
Music: Same with beauty. There some sounds that people enjoy.
Poetry: Somebody, somewhere, got the idea that not only sounds can be pretty, but the use of sounds + the use of language can be used to create something akin to "linguistic music".

 

[Veritass]

Here you go:

• Love
• Beauty
• Inner Peace
• Music
• Poetry
• God

Love: Evolutionary development in the brains of mammals that is an evolutionary advantage. Without love, mothers don't raise their children so well. We'll never know what a female cat feels about her children, but we do know what female humans (and male humans) feel towards their children. Love makes the children grow up better, so it's clearly an evolutionary advantage.
Beauty: An appreciation of beauty is common in the animal world; for example, birds. It is generally accepted that female birds mate with the prettiest males. For example, ducks and peacocks. The concept of "beauty" among humans is simple. Humans have, through their genetics but more importantly social upbringing, have developed an appreciation for beauty. Things simply look pleasing to the eye. Or to the ear. Things are simply pleasing to the senses.
Inner peace: People sometimes feel calm.
Music: Same with beauty. There some sounds that people enjoy.
Poetry: Somebody, somewhere, got the idea that not only sounds can be pretty, but the use of sounds + the use of language can be used to create something akin to "linguistic music".

Hardly a rational and logical explanation of any of them. Let's take beauty, for example. There is evidence that female birds will mate with the most brightly colored of their species, but that does not equate to beauty.

Your arguments about "pleasing" is not rational or objective. Different things are pleasing to different people, and this is mainly a learned response, not an objective one.

I submit that there is no objective definition of beauty. That does not mean that there is no experience of beauty; I have such experiences every day. These experiences are personal, irrational, and not fully communicable. However, you cannot use logic to prove to me that beauty exists.

This causes me to deny the OP, and I assert that there are plenty of things in the human experience that are not rational, and which have value anyway.

 

[Phlegmak]

Your arguments about "pleasing" is not rational or objective. Different things are pleasing to different people, and this is mainly a learned response, not an objective one.

But what happens when people learn things? Their brains are rewired. So what becomes pleasing changes when people learn things. Makes perfect sense to me.

I submit that there is no objective definition of beauty. That does not mean that there is no experience of beauty; I have such experiences every day. These experiences are personal, irrational, and not fully communicable. However, you cannot use logic to prove to me that beauty exists.

Sure I can. At the most fundamental level, beauty is what pleases the senses. It doesn't matter if beauty is universal. And it's very easily communicable.

 

[Mise]

beauty is what pleases the senses.

Don't you see how circular that is?

 

[Veritass]

At the most fundamental level, beauty is what pleases the senses. It doesn't matter if beauty is universal. And it's very easily communicable.

At the most fundamental level, God is what is pleasing to the soul. It doesn't matter if God is universal. And it's very easily communicable.

 

[Phlegmak]

Don't you see how circular that is?

No. Someone sees something that pleases the senses and then uses the word "beautiful" to describe it. Sounds fine to me.

At the most fundamental level, God is what is pleasing to the soul. It doesn't matter if God is universal. And it's very easily communicable.

Ok, good for you. I guess.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well? If one cannot rationally defend something using logic should they renounce it as false?

I guess it depends if other alternatives can be rationally defended or not.

Simple example, can we rationally defend there are blue carrots on another planet in the universe ? No we can't. But can we rationally defend they are not ? No we can't. Conclusion : everything is possible !

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

* Love
That which allows ones biological needs to be fullfilled without much conflict!

* Beauty
Allows us to identify Healthy people/environments, as well as practical designs (see symetry) for personal benefit! Art makes us feel special for recreating or creating beauty, and feeling special makes us have more reason to appreciate ourselves!
* Inner Peace
When we feel at peace with ourselves we can do more things to our benefit!
* Music
See art, plus entertaining ourselves makes us happy, happiness makes us feel good, feeling good, personal benefit is what we're about!
* Poetry
Same,
* God
Really, at the bottom of it, same as well!

 

[Stylesjl]

In a nutshell- Yes

Edit: But that simply means you shouldn't beleive it and consider it false until proven otherwise. If you can then prove it, you may return to the idea