Bit wrote:This entire post will probably be deleted for moderation reasons, but I never miss a good chance to tear a fallacious argument apart.
You open with an appeal from ignorance. Just because someone can not prove the contrary to what you are saying does not mean that your point has sufficient evidence to back itself up. I cannot prove that Krishna does not exist, just the same as I can not prove that Satan, Allah, Cthulu, or Poseidon also do not exist. Basically, your first argument can not prove the existence of Krishna, for if it did, it would also prove that all other gods that you could possibly imagine also exist.
Secondly, you say that the only way one may obtain answers is through listening to authority, which I assume you mean to be Krishna, or those who claim to be witnesses of the existence of Krishna. However, who the authority is depends on who you are subordinate to. What if your authority says that Krishna does not exist? Also, who is authority? Those who say they are authority? Anyone can claim to be authority, even me. Is it those that many people agree with? Then Christianity, the biggest religion in the world, would always be the true authority. Is it old men or old women? There are more non-Hindu old men and women than there are Hindu old men and women. These are facts, do you ignore them?
naha wrote:Bit wrote:This entire post will probably be deleted for moderation reasons, but I never miss a good chance to tear a fallacious argument apart.
You open with an appeal from ignorance. Just because someone can not prove the contrary to what you are saying does not mean that your point has sufficient evidence to back itself up. I cannot prove that Krishna does not exist, just the same as I can not prove that Satan, Allah, Cthulu, or Poseidon also do not exist. Basically, your first argument can not prove the existence of Krishna, for if it did, it would also prove that all other gods that you could possibly imagine also exist.
Secondly, you say that the only way one may obtain answers is through listening to authority, which I assume you mean to be Krishna, or those who claim to be witnesses of the existence of Krishna. However, who the authority is depends on who you are subordinate to. What if your authority says that Krishna does not exist? Also, who is authority? Those who say they are authority? Anyone can claim to be authority, even me. Is it those that many people agree with? Then Christianity, the biggest religion in the world, would always be the true authority. Is it old men or old women? There are more non-Hindu old men and women than there are Hindu old men and women. These are facts, do you ignore them?
and what is that argument from ignorance ? ( nonsense bluff ) that there is father before your birth ? ( just see the fun )
so you want to say that there is no father before your birth. and you were dropped from the sky into the womb of your mother ? are you that intelligent bluff ? than you are nonsense bluff. simply nonsense.
__________
and no saying that there is no father before your birth ( nonsense bluff ) so we have never seen our real father before our birth.
so kindly tell us process by which we recognize who is our real father. tell us your modern process of recognizing of our real father. ( if there is any ) cuz we never seen him before our birth doesnt means there is no papa.
and ( nonsense bluff ) no saying that there is no father before your birth. ( it is argument from ignorance ) and that we were dropped from the sky into the womb of our mother. ( that is not possible nonsense bluff )
___________
and kindly dont bring any hindu bindu cuz 2 + 2 = is 4 for everyone. it is not only 4 for fistful hindu bindu. and also dont *impose* ( or shift burdon of proof ) other authorities like christianity, islam, and other 3500 religions on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) without explaining anything at all.
Bit wrote:[size=200]An "appeal to ignorance" [/size]is a fallacy that describes an argument in which someone argues that since a certain subject of the argument is unknown, then that persons' conclusion on the subject is the only correct conclusion. For example: Timmy and Tommy want to know what happens when someone travels to the center of the Earth, but neither of them are actually ever going to be able to do so. Tommy then says that the Earth's core is a portal to another dimension, while Timmy thinks that it is not. Tommy says that since neither of them know what is at the center of the Earth, the center of the Earth can ONLY BE a portal another dimension. However, Tommy is incorrect, as since neither of them know what is at the center of the Earth, all possible answers are plausible, not just Tommy's. Timmy could, for example, assert that when traveled to, the center of the Earth gives you wings, or horns, or tails, and all of these answers would be just as plausible as Tommy's, since no one TRULY can EVER know the answer. We can measure the outside of the Earth, and send radio waves through the Earth, and attempt to calculate to our best ability what COULD BE inside, but we will never truly know.
You ask how I can live not knowing who my father is. Well, it's simple. One can never truly know ANYTHING. For all you know, your mind is plugged into a simulation, and your computer, your room, your country, your planet, even I, could all just be figments of your imagination. You CANNOT KNOW.
Secondly, my assertion was that your authority that told you Krishna was real is only just as good, or worse, than the authorities of Christians, Islamists, etc. Christians claim Jesus was a real person, and point to the historical texts outside of the Bible depicting his existence. Islamists claim Muhammad was a real person, and point to the historical texts outside of the Quran depicting HIS existence. Jews claim the Torah is correct, for all of the historical evidence that appears to back it up. What do you provide? Fallacious arguments? If you want to make a point, don't make an "Appeal to Authority" (Which is also a fallacy, by the way), especially to an authority that hasn't been proven to be better than any other.
naha wrote:Bit@ what happened now ? how can you remain silent or bear it ? for one man is throwing shoe filled with potty on your face with an open challenge. and you are silent ?
unless you are broken dead horse. how is it possible ? come to ground ( nonsense bluff ) prove yourself now. and if you remained silent than it will be proof that you are broken dead horse. ( that is the proof )
Bit wrote:naha wrote:Bit@ what happened now ? how can you remain silent or bear it ? for one man is throwing shoe filled with potty on your face with an open challenge. and you are silent ?
unless you are broken dead horse. how is it possible ? come to ground ( nonsense bluff ) prove yourself now. and if you remained silent than it will be proof that you are broken dead horse. ( that is the proof )
You seem wholly unfamiliar with Perspectivism, which is the "Nonsense" you seem to be referring to here. If I speak nonsense, does Nietzsche speak nonsense as well?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
Perspectivism is the philosophical idea that nothing is true, and that instead, everything is perceived. As all external stimulus is perceived through the lens of the mind, and since the mind is also subject to delusion, no thoughts pertaining to "Object Truth" can be trusted. One can only merely guess at what the truth may be, if there is even a singular truth to speak of at all.
Going back to the "Father" analogy, your mother can only GUESS that what she perceives to be your "Father" was actually your "Father". Did she see him? She thinks so. Did she touch him? She thinks so. Did she conceive a child with him? She can only think so, but she can never truly know as her thoughts and memories are, and will always be, capable of delusion.
You constantly whine about me shifting the burden of proof, as you shift it unto me. Well, my proof here is that nothing is true, and that everything is perceived. This means that no matter how much you THINK you saw a god, or how much you THINK you feel a god's presence, or how much you THINK you are an authority on a god's existence, you can only ever THINK these things. Their truthfulness cannot be known.
Even though all ideas (such as the idea of the existence of Krishna) can only be perceived, making them subject to delusion, this does not mean that all ideas are equal. The only way to "sift", as it were, through all bad ideas is to find a singular idea that most, if not all people agree with. Do most, if not all people agree with your religious ideology? The answer is no. This does not mean your are "objectively incorrect", it just means you are inter-subjectively incorrect.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest