I've already answered this question in plain English:
In philosophical language, one raises a semantic issue, the other an ontological issue.
Since, I refused to help you prove your claim about the “rutabaga” a claim that you were incapable of proving.
I, now see a request being made for Angel to help prove your claim about the “rutabaga”. I also see, that you remain incapable of proving your claim.
Thanks for the enlightenment of your continuation to seek help from others to prove your claim.
Roseann
It does not matter that not one skeptic ever said that or asked for proof from either one of us.
Since, not one of the skeptics were interested in that subject until Angel started this thread.
To follow our logic we could claim to be theists but we would be incapable of proving we are actually theists.
You would need to simply believe our claim to be theists is actually based on truth and we are not liars.
Roseann
The knowledge of philosophy contained in this post of yours is exactly zero. Good riddance, man.Semantics is not epistemological category. Ontology is an an entirely different philosophical study and also is not a category of epistemology.
So your answer is incorrect.
You presented the word "rutabaga" in a virtual context as evidence of physical reality. That doesn't fly. Moreover, you failed, and still fail, to appreciate the point driven home by your failure to provide physical evidence for a physical reality in a virtual context. CharisRose had you, and still has you, dead to rights.I made no claim about a rutabaga. I presented a rutabaga as evidence of physical reality. Your refusal to find your own rutabaga does not negate the evidence.
You presented the word "rutabaga" in a virtual context as evidence of physical reality. That doesn't fly. Moreover, you failed, and still fail, to appreciate the point driven home by your failure to provide physical evidence for a physical reality in a virtual context. CharisRose had you, and still has you, dead to rights.
The knowledge of philosophy contained in this post of yours is exactly zero. Good riddance, man.
It is impossible to present a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. You did no such thing.No, I presented a physical rutabaga as evidence, and instructed all concerned to not take my word for it, but to find their own physical rutabaga. It they refuse to do that, it does not discount the humble rutabaga as physical evidence.
You don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple. Epistemology figures into ever philosophical subject.More ad hominem.
Anyone who can google can find out that I am correct and you are not. You are apparently just making things up as you go along. Ontology is not a category of epistemology. Nor is semantics.
I made no claim about a rutabaga. I presented a rutabaga as evidence of physical reality. Your refusal to find your own rutabaga does not negate the evidence.
It is impossible to present a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. You did no such thing.
You don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple. Epistemology figures into ever philosophical subject.
Yes you did.
You presented the word “rutabaga” as evidence of it’s physical reality.
I asked you to provide a physical rutabaga. You provided a picture.
I asked, again that you provide a physical rutabaga.
Then, since you realized you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga.
You gave me instructions to go shopping and find a rutabaga.
I, then refused to help you prove your claim that the “word” rutabaga was evidence of it’s physical reality.
And, then I asked again for a physical rutabaga as evidence of it’s physical reality.
You were incapable and remain incapable of providing evidence of a physical rutabaga without my help.
I already explained to you in the physical world it is a very simple task to find, look at, touch... etc a physical rutabaga.
What, my refusal to find a physical rutabaga in the physical world did was to...
Negate your claim that your simple use of the word “rutabaga” was actually evidence of the physical reality of a physical rutabaga that can be found easily in the physical world you and I enjoy every day surrounded by a multitude of physical objects, human beings, a world abundant with all manner of physical things that we can see, touch, smell, taste... etc.
Roseann
Yes, it does matter, because it refutes your claim about skepticism. Skepticism acknowledges that people hold all manner of beliefs. Skepticism does not call believers liars. Skepticism looks at the contents of the belief.
No, I brought up the humble rutabaga, and asked others to go find their own. I don't require anyone to take my word for it in a virtual context.
No, I brought up the humble rutabaga as a piece of physical evidence of physical reality. I never said that the word rutabaga was the evidence, which is why I requested of anyone interested in seeing the evidence to not take my word for it, but find their own rutabaga. I don't think that I am required to invade your privacy and find out who you are and where you live so that I can personally deliver a rutabaga. So no, I never claimed the word rutabaga was the evidence. Go find your rutabaga and become enlightened.
The bad faith of Internet Skepticism illustrated in 29 mendacious words.No, I brought up the humble rutabaga, and asked others to go find their own. I don't require anyone to take my word for it in a virtual context.
The authoritative ignorance of this post is duly noted.No, epistemology does not figure into every philosophical subject. That is incorrect.
I told you before that I do not need your help via instruction or delivery to find a physical rutabaga in the physical world.
I also do not need your instructions or deliveries to become enlightened that physical objects exist in the physical world.
I figured that out all by myself when I was a mere child. Because...
Finding physical objects is child’s play in the physical world. We are surrounded by physical objects every day of our lives.
We can see, touch and examine a multitude of physical objects in the physical world.
Bottom line is... That I provided enlightenment when I helped you discover that you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.
Roseann
The authoritative ignorance of this post is duly noted.
The authoritative ignorance of this post is duly noted.
You provided nothing that was not obvious. I never claimed that I could provide a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. So go find your rutabaga, as I requested, rather than spreading falsehoods about what I posted here.
I as a skeptic... am skeptical that claims of being an atheist can be proven based on the fact there is no physical evidence they could provide that can prove they are actually/factually atheists.
Can you provide any physical evidence you are factually/actually an atheist.
I never called anyone a liar.
I stated, that if Angel or I claimed to be theists a skeptic could be skeptical of our claim because we could not prove via any physical evidence claims to being theists.
The skeptic... prior to this thread had no interest in any “theist” claims... which could be labeled as a direct connection to a belief in GOD, that skeptics prefer to question.
mho Prior to this thread a skeptic questioning a claim of being a theist would be downright boring.
Angels “idea” is different than that boring kind of questioning.
It was interesting enough for me to return to this forum and add my :twocents: concerning the subject he presented to the skeptics as a challenge to their skeptic rules that apply to others but do not apply to them in their role as skeptics concerning “beliefs”.
The Skeptical GOD questioners are now balking at this challenge to their role as skeptics via a twist of reversal skeptical questioning being used by Angel or others concerning
a subject the skeptics have no interest in debating combined with the expectation that they should abide by their own rules when debating the subject matter presented on this thread.
Roseann
I am correct about epistemology.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?