Self Refuting Statements Part 1

Link

http://www.roarnomore.com/2010/11/jujutsu-apologetics.html

Learn Country Guitar
http://guitarharrisy.blogspot.com/
Learn Worship Guitar
http://worshipguitarriffs.blogspot.com/
Was the South Right?
http://therisingseed.blogspot.com/

Statement: "There are no Absolutes!"
Answer: "Are you absolutely sure?"

Statement: "No one should be judged for their lifestyle"
Answer: "Is that your judgment regarding those whose lifestyle requires judging?"

Statement: "You can't just align yourself with a dogma"
Answer: "Are you aligned to that dogma?"

Statement: "No one can define 'God.'"
Answer: "Is that your definition for God?"

Statement: "There is no right or wrong."
Answer: "Is that right?"

Statement: "Don't be dogmatic!"
Answer: "Are you being dogmatic?"

Statement: "Word's cannot relay meaning."
Answer: "Do your words relay the meaning that words cannot relay meaning?"

Statment: "Nobody's right"
Answer: "Are you right about that?"

Empiricism

Statement: "Science is the best (or only) way to determine truth."
Answer: "What scientific experiment proved this statement to be true?"

Statement: "Science doesn't need philosophy."
Answer: "Is that your philosophy for science?"

Statement: "We can't know anything apart from experience."
Answer: "How did you experience this statement?"

Statement: "All knowledge is confined to the realm of experience" (Immanuel Kant)
Answer: "Have you experienced all knowledge?

Statement: "Everything is an allusion."
Answer: "Is that statement an allusion?"

Statement: "We must lose our desires."
Answer: "Is that your desire?"

Statement: "Life has no meaning."
Answer: "Do you really mean that?"

Statement: "There is no such thing as truth"
Answer: "Is that the truth?"

Statement: "I believe in nothing."
Answer: "Is that something you believe in?"

Statement: "Every assertion is false."
Answer: "Is that assertion false?"

Statement: "There are no rules"
Answer: "Is that your rule?"

Statement: "The whole world is an allusion"
Answer: "Is your statement an allusion?"

Statement: ...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• jujutsu
• jujitsu
• apologetics
• self defeating
• self refuting
• statement
• pressupositional
• don t answer answer
• philosophy
• fool
• atheism
• relativism
• postmodernism
• empiricism
• modernism
• eastern religion
• pantheism
• skepticism
• nihilism
• christianity
• proof
• argument
• debate

[ChaseParkison]

What a waste of time. These two videos have too much wrong with them to list in one post. This guys logic is very backwards and doesn't see how all his answers are in complete paradox with himself.

[iliveasif]

I don't need water or air to live. "A man doesn't live on bread alone but on every word that's issued forth from the mouth of god."

[TheObservationDeck]

@Wittgensteinism

We agree on many things. But one thing I'm still struggling with concerning your "everything is relative" philosophy is the question I asked earlier which I will state again in different words.

Is it only relatively true that humans need air and water to live?

[Wittgensteinism]

@TheObservationDeck "So you're a relativist in the sense that all perceive or subjective observations are relative"

Exactly. Truth as a function of subjective perception. We cannot, after all, be conscious of anything outside our own consciousness--- that would entail a contradiction.

What we can say is that words, sentences, match/mirror what is being experienced, given the correct set of definitions.

The definitions are relative, the experience is relative, and so is the Truth of it all

[TheObservationDeck]

@Wittgensteinism As far as redundant truths, you say, needing air and water is contained within the def of being human. So you're a relativist in the sense that all perceive or subjective observations are relative (it's cold in this room). If it is a redundant truth that humans need air/water to survive due to the def of what it is to be human then cannot one change the def of what it is to be human whimsically and thus make the statement "all humans need air/water" not objectively true?

[TheObservationDeck]

@Wittgensteinism

Hmmm.. I didn't respond to your "sitting still for 3 min." example because I wasn't there to observe the truthfulness of it. What does "sitting still" actually entail? Does it mean your lungs and heart need also to be still for the 3 min.?

[Wittgensteinism]

@TheObservationDeck What is at stake here are, to be more specific and clear, contingent proposition. In other words, proposition that have the possibility of being true or false depending on what we observe about them. For example, my statement "i've been sitting still for 3 minutes". That's not necessarily true (tautologically true) as in the case of wednesday occuring once a week. Wednesday is by definition a single day of the week, so it's not contingent on observation. See the difference?

[Wittgensteinism]

@TheObservationDeck Well i'm glad you clearly defined 'objective' so we can at least be on the same page there, but i'm disappointed you didn't address whether you thought the statement "i have been sitting still for 3 minutes" is objectively true or not.

As for the examples you gave, i would say they ARE redundant because their truth is derived from their definition. In other words, needing air and water is contained within the definition of what it is to be human, and the same for "wednesday"

[TheObservationDeck]

@Wittgensteinism

By objective truth I mean something is universally true for all people everywhere at all times. For example, it is objectively true that in North America there is one Wednesday in every seven day circulation. Or, humans need air and water to survive. These things are always true regardless of people's opinions and perspectives. Would you consider the above examples not truths but redundancies? If so, what do you mean by redundancies and how are they not truths?