Draymond thinks earth could be flat

[IslandG]

Lol. This guy really implied that being peer-reviewed is synonymous with cac? So black people aren't academics and scientists too?

This guy guy sounds like he's more influenced by cac teachings than the people he decries.

 

[godkiller]

If the earth is flat and at the center of the universe then we know we are special and were created.

It would not be conclusive proof but it would be strongly suggestive.

I agree with @DonKnock.

Flat inanimate things appear in nature all the time. Flat stones' existence doesn't suggest anytgung intelligent created flat stones.

 

[godkiller]

Lol. This guy really implied that being peer-reviewed is synonymous with cac? So black people aren't academics and scientists too?

This guy guy sounds like he's more influenced by cac teachings than the people he decries.

To be honest, peer review doesn't necessarily mean a theory is correct. Most peer reviewers are biased cacs themselves and occasionally accept studies as academically honest and valid if said studies coincide with peer reviewers' political or social views.

 

[Inferno]

I can't believe some of the shyt I'm reading in this thread

 

[DonKnock]

If the earth is flat and at the center of the universe then we know we are special and were created.

It would not be conclusive proof but it would be strongly suggestive.

Earth being flat does not mean that we're at the center of the universe.

Earth being at the center of the universe does not mean it was created.

Earth being at the center of the universe does not mean it's flat.

You've proved nothing so far

 

[godkiller]

Descartes didn't tell us to believe anything. He just questioned everything including his own existence. From there he said the only thing he could be sure of was his consciousness since he could question his own existence. Everything else is a mystery.

This isn't me believing in the word of a cac. Its me performing the same thought experiment and coming to the same conclusion.

All we can be sure of in this world is that we are conscious. Everything else could be fake.

This is a great and educational post. Indeed, Descartes skeptically doubted everything about his own existence, questioning whether there was any infallible proof that anything he experienced was actually real.

According to Descartes skeptical reduction, it could be, for instance, that we as humans live a Matrix-esque world and everything we do, everything experience we have, everything we claim to hold dear, even our very identities, are just machine-stimulated illusions created by super intelligent and super evil overseers.

Hence the only thing we know about ourselves that we cannot reduce to some extraneous possibility is our own thinking and cognition.

 

[GPBear]

Descartes didn't tell us to believe anything. He just questioned everything including his own existence. From there he said the only thing he could be sure of was his consciousness since he could question his own existence. Everything else is a mystery.

This isn't me believing in the word of a cac. Its me performing the same thought experiment and coming to the same conclusion.

All we can be sure of in this world is that we are conscious. Everything else could be fake.

This is a great and educational post. Indeed, Descartes skeptically doubted everything about his own existence, questioning whether there was any infallible proof that anything he experienced was actually real.

According to Descartes skeptical reduction, it could be, for instance, that we as humans live a Matrix-esque world and everything we do, everything experience we have, everything we claim to hold dear, even our very identities, are just machine-stimulated illusions created by super intelligent and super evil overseers.

Hence the only thing we know about ourselves that we cannot reduce to some extraneous possibility is our own thinking and cognition.

Not even remotely close to what Decartes was about.

What you said was that you're a solipsist and Decartes is the reason why.
You took a very simple reading of "cognito ergo sum" to mean "I think therefore I am, but I can't think for you, so how can I know you exist."


In actuality, Decartes separated facts between a priori and a posteori. Then you had Hume bring in synthetic and analytic. And then Kant brings in synthetic a priori facts.

I'm on shrooms and y'all still dumb as fuqq

 

[Da King]

White folks told y'all it was a sphere and y'all ran with it. We really don't know

 

[godkiller]

Not even remotely close to what Decartes was about.

In actuality, Decartes separated facts between a priori and a posteori. Then you hand Hume bring in synthetic and analtyic. And then Kant brings in synthetic a priori facts.


What you said was that you're a solipsist and Decartes is the reason why.
You took a very simple reading of "cognito ergo sum" to mean "I think therefore I am, but I can't think for you, so how can I know you exist."

.

I agree with @Swagnificent

Cognito ergo sum, in other words 'I think therefore I am', necessarily and logically implies that I have no proof of any other's existence but my own. For if one is only sure of his own thinking, everything else--including the assumption everyone else thinks and exists as I do--could be an illusion

The Matrix universe is an example of your fallacy at work. A prior every person in the Matrix universe believed that every thinking person in that universe was real and thought the same as them. This proved not to be true as indeed many people in the Matrix weren't real people at all, but rather just insidious computer programs, including the Oracle herself.

 

[GPBear]

.

I agree with @Swagnificent
Cognito ergo sum, in other words 'I think therefore I am' necessarily and logically implies that I have no proof of any other's existence but my own. For if one is only sure of his own thinking, everything else--including the assumption everyone else thinks as I do--could be an illusion.

Bro how can you even argue with me? I'm telling you I know exactly what your reading is, and that it's wrong.

You can't simplify a man's entire philosophy down to a simpler, easy to remember motto like "cognito ergo sum" and then manipulate that to suit your own purposes.

Especially when I tell you that I know what you're doing and that you're simply wrong. That's hilarious.

 

[godkiller]

Bro how can you even argue with me? I'm telling you I know exactly what your reading is, and that it's wrong.

You can't simplify a man's entire philosophy down to a simpler, easy to remember motto like "cognito ergo sum" and then manipulate that to suit your own purposes.

Especially when I tell you that I know what you're doing and that you're simply wrong. That's hilarious.

Rene Descartes himself simplified his reasoning of self to 'I think therefore I am", and this is the reason students all study Descartes' skeptical reasoning method in college.

But If you think I'm wrong to state his conclusion as he did, go find me evidenxe from his writing that his skeptical reduction ideas don't amount to 'I think therefore I am".

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[DPresidential]

All I see is that you're studying a bunch of CaCery

You need to be studying the scripture and the teachings that the Egyptians left behind so you can truly break free of the control these CaCs have over the knowledge that try and force to us.

The buddy snatchers got you,

 

[GPBear]

Rene Descartes himself simplified his reasoning of self to 'I think therefore I am", and this is the reason students all study Descartes' skeptical reasoning method in college.
But If you think I'm wrong to state his conclusion as he did, go find me evidenxe from his writing that his skeptical reduction ideas don't amount to 'I think therefore I am".

The burden of proof is on you.

No. No, he didn't simplify his reasoning to "I think therefore I am," which is a butchered quotation of his french anyways.

That phrase was in the first paragraph of an essay, so obviously Descartes had more to say and his philosophy went further. You might have something to what you're saying if he ended his book with "cognito ergo sum" as some sort of existential epitaph, but no. In fact, that was just a minor part of his larger thoughts.

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

What's really going on in here?

Fukkery

 

[Tha Gawd Amen]

Fukkery

You negged me when I was being sarcastic breh. If you'd check the other threads you know where I stood on this issue