Last-Thursdayism and its variants

Author: Math_Enthusiast
Philosophy
Solipsism

Posts

Total: 31
Topic's author
#1
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
The recent forum topic on solipsism got me thinking about this. Last-Thursdayism is a belief (which, to my knowledge, no one actually holds) that the universe,  everything within it, including our memories, popped into existence last Thursday. Similar to solipsism, you apparently cannot prove it wrong, as one cannot prove that anything exists outside of their own mind and experiences, right here, right now. Here's an interesting variant: Imagine there was a group of people that believed that the universe was created last Thursday at noon, and would end next Thursday at noon. It seems as though come next Thursday they would be proven wrong, but they wouldn't. Instead, come noon on Thursday they would celebrate the beginning of the universe, claiming that the previous week never happened. This cycle would repeat every week, and they could always claim that they were never actually wrong, we just remember them being wrong, but that never happened. After all, those are just our pre-imposed false memories of before the universe existed. Now here's something which might get some Christians riled up. Suppose that the Christian God is real. Now suppose that God is omnipotent and omniscient with one exception: All of His power will disappear next Thursday at noon, and even He doesn't know it. There is no way for Him to know this, and there is no way for Him to stop it from happening. Christians, you cannot prove this wrong. Not even next Thursday at noon, because who is to say that you will immediately recognize all of God's power as gone. After all, all of His recent actions will still be in effect.

Here are some challenges:

  1. Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
  2. If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
  3. Christians: Can you refute what I said regarding the possibility that God will lose all of His power next Thursday at noon? You may want to start with challenge 1 for this.
Good luck!
#2
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
existence
The state of having objective reality.

  1. If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
I think you're saying that we have no way of knowing whether anything is "real" except for logical concepts, but I also think Occam's razor applies here.

All of His power will disappear next Thursday at noon
How? There has to be some means by which that happens, and no entity can be more powerful than an all-powerful being. Add to that the fact that God exists outside of time and knows exactly what will happen at every point in the future. What you're suggesting is incompatible with the concept of God, since he created and controls time.
Topic's author
#3
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Savant
The state of having objective reality.
As previously stated, the dictionary definition doesn't cut it. If you look up the definition of "real" or "reality," they both rely on "exist" or "existence," so this definition is no definition.

I think you're saying that we have no way of knowing whether anything is "real" except for logical concepts, but I also think Occam's razor applies here.
Most certainly it does. This isn't where I was originally going with this, (I did ask for an application of your definition of existence) but this is a good answer.

There has to be some means by which that happens, and no entity can be more powerful than an all-powerful being.
Does there have to be some means by which it happens? The whole point of all of this is to challenge the standard notion of causality. As a matter of fact, quantum mechanics proves that not everything has a cause. Now, certainly quantum mechanics doesn't apply here, but the point still stands: The universe is non-deterministic, and there are certainly still things we don't know.

Add to that the fact that God exists outside of time and knows exactly what will happen at every point in the future.
The former is not something I considered. Nonetheless, this is a hypothetical anyway, so let's just change things around a bit: I already put limitations on God's omniscience, so suppose that God doesn't actually exist outside of time, He just thinks He does. The latter was already covered in my hypothetical:

All of His power will disappear next Thursday at noon, and even He doesn't know it. There is no way for Him to know this, and there is no way for Him to stop it from happening.

What you're suggesting is incompatible with the concept of God, since he created and controls time.
The point is that that is what He thinks, but He is wrong. In this hypothetical, He has told us that He is omnipotent and omniscient, and He believes so, but that is not entirely accurate. I suppose you could say that that makes Him not God, but the idea is that He is the one who created the world, created humans, saved us from our sins, etc. He just has limitations that no one (including Himself) is currently aware of.
#4
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
As previously stated, the dictionary definition doesn't cut it.
Real means "accurate, not imaginary." We can go on defining terms, but I'm fairly sure you know what they mean.

The whole point of all of this is to challenge the standard notion of causality.
Again I'd appeal to Occam's razor, but I have a feeling you've got something prepared on that front...

suppose that God doesn't actually exist outside of time, He just thinks He does
God is typically defined as having absolute knowledge, in the same way that a person "knows" they are sentient or feel pain. (I think, therefore I am.) Even if the pain is purely psychological, it's still "pain" in that a person is experiencing it. It's odd to think of someone "knowing" absolute truths in this way, but that's what "all-knowing" means. God has the same amount of certainty that he exists outside of time that we have in knowing we exist.
Topic's author
#5
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Savant
Real means "accurate, not imaginary." We can go on defining terms, but I'm fairly sure you know what they mean.
I know what they mean, (or at least I have my own personal notion of them) but I'm fairly certain there are many people who cannot define "exist" in a non-circular way. For that matter, imaginary means "existing only in the imagination," which means that we first need to know what it means for something to exist outside of the imagination, and just like that we went in a circle. A similar thing with accurate, which pretty quickly leads back to the other main word-people-think-they-can-define-but-can't: true! My stance is that existence is somewhat of a subjective concept, not because our minds can control external reality or any nonsense like that, but simply because "exist" is just a word like any other, it requires a definition, and even when it is defined in a non-circular way, we will never all agree. Allow me to give an example: Some believe that there is no external reality, and it is all simply in their mind. I would claim that this isn't even wrong, but rather it is indistinguishable from the alternative. The reason for this is because it is up to us what we even mean by the word "exist," and the experiences which result from those two possibilities are themselves indistinguishable.

Now, I anticipate that you will argue that "exist" is just as well defined as any word in the English language, as by the nature of defining English with English, all definitions are circular in the end. I would beg to differ, as most words still trace back to entirely separate words, which in turn can be defined by pointing to something in reality. (e.g. "See that there? That's what an apple is!") When we look at the definition of "exist," we just see other words which basically mean "exist." (Real, accurate, not imaginary, etc.)

I will also make a comment on my use of the word "exist." You may notice that despite my claims of no one, non-circular, agreed upon definition, I still inevitably find myself using this word, and things like it. The principle that I am using, that almost everyone agrees upon, is "I think therefore I am." Moreover I am assuming that we can agree that our experiences and thoughts can be said to exist within our minds. "External reality" is where the disagreement, and often a lack of any good definitions, begins.

Again I'd appeal to Occam's razor, but I have a feeling you've got something prepared on that front...
You would be surprised. I don't. I think you are absolutely right, and trying to say that Occam's razor doesn't apply here would be grasping at straws. Rather, I see no reason that anyone should hold these beliefs, but I also see no way that they can be dismissed with absolute certainty. (...that is without a definition of existence which allows them to be dismissed by definition!!)

God is typically defined as having absolute knowledge, in the same way that a person "knows" they are sentient or feel pain. (I think, therefore I am.) Even if the pain is purely psychological, it's still "pain" in that a person is experiencing it. It's odd to think of someone "knowing" absolute truths in this way, but that's what "all-knowing" means. God has the same amount of certainty that he exists outside of time that we have in knowing we exist.
This isn't intended to be identical to the Christian god. There are notions of God which don't require absolute knowledge.
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I know what they mean
I think this is good enough for our purposes. The discussion on semantics seems largely tangential to the discussion of Last-Thursdayism, at least based on what's been said so far.

most words still trace back to entirely separate words, which in turn can be defined by pointing to something in reality. (e.g. "See that there? That's what an apple is!")
We can do that for "exist" too. ("That apple exists. Now imagine a purple apple with a smiley face. That apple doesn't exist.")

Rather, I see no reason that anyone should hold these beliefs, but I also see no way that they can be dismissed with absolute certainty.
Agree for the most part. Something can be extremely improbable but still possible. I only delve into certainty when I say that "if an omniscient God exists, by the Christian understanding of omniscience, then the Last-Thursday scenario would not be possible." That's granting a premise that you probably don't agree with, but I think it addresses some of the claims you made in your initial post.

I also see no way that they can be dismissed with absolute certainty
There are notions of God which don't require absolute knowledge.
I think your argument boils down to saying that hypothetically a God could exist who isn't as powerful as they think. I agree that there's probably some conception of God that meets those criteria. I brought up Christian conceptions of God because you mentioned the Christian religion a number of times in your original post.
Topic's author
#7
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Savant
We can do that for "exist" too. ("That apple exists. Now imagine a purple apple with a smiley face. That apple doesn't exist.")
Okay, Alice doesn't know what "exist" means, and she wants Bob to explain it to her. Bob will start by using your suggested example. Let's see how that goes for him.

Alice: What does it mean for something to exist?

Bob (pointing to an apple): That apple exists. Now imagine a purple apple with a smiley face. That apple doesn't exist.

Alice: So the one I see exists, and the one that I imagine doesn't.

Bob: Exactly.

Alice: So what about air, does it exist?

Bob: Yes.

Alice: But I can't see it.

Bob: Well, you are still interacting with it.

Alice: But then aren't I interacting with the purple apple with the smiley face when I imagine it?

Bob: Well, no. It has to be physical.

Alice: Okay, so it's just something I can physically interact with.

Bob: Yeah, that's a great description.

Alice: Okay, so then, for example, America exists, because I live there, and so I interact with it all the time, but Dubai doesn't.

Bob: Well, you've still seen pictures, right?

Alice: Yes, I have. Okay, so pictures count, so then, for example, the apple right there exists...

Alice (pulling up a picture on her computer): ...and so does this unicorn.

Bob: Well, no. Hmm.... Okay, so like, theoretically you can go and see Dubai, but not the unicorn.

Alice: What about dreams? I can see the unicorn there.

Bob: That's different, that doesn't count as physical.

Alice: What about lucid dreams? Those are physical. If I see the unicorn there, does it exist?

Bob: What? Lucid dreams aren't physical! Where did you get that from?

Alice: Well, I thought physical had to do with your senses. They certainly feel the same, if not more vivid. You can see, smell, taste...

Bob: No, it's not about your senses, it's what actually exists.

Alice: What "exists?" I don't know what the means remember?

Bob: Just, not in a dream or a hallucination. It has to be in this world that were in right now.

Alice: What if we're dreaming right now?

Bob: People don't share dreams, Alice.

Alice: But what if I'm dreaming right now?

Bob: You're not.

Alice: How would I know that though?

Bob: Well, I know that I exist. I suppose you might not be able to tell.

Alice: Don't use "exist."

Bob: Oh, sorry. I know that I am a thinking being right now.

Alice: Wait, what if life is just one big dream? What counts as a dream?

Bob: Well, your brain creates it, it doesn't actually exi- Oh my gosh.

Bob (sighs): You know, you're right, this doesn't make sense. I'm going to become a solipsist.

Alice: What? Wait, when did I say that something didn't make sense? And what is solipsism?

Bob: Solipsism? It's a particular belief. I don't want to explain it right this second.

Alice: Does that exist? Wait, do thoughts exist?

Bob: According to solipsism, they're one of the only things that do.

Alice: But that means that the purple apple with the smiley face does exist.

Bob: You know what, actually, I'm not going to become a solipsist, I'm going to become a nihilist. I'm never using the word exist again. Want to go on a vacation?

Alice: To where?

Bob: Narnia. We'll take the Tardis.


I hope I've made my point.

I think your argument boils down to saying that hypothetically a God could exist who isn't as powerful as they think. I agree that there's probably some conception of God that meets those criteria. I brought up Christian conceptions of God because you mentioned the Christian religion a number of times in your original post.
The idea is that this God is indistinguishable from the Christian God up until next Thursday at noon.
#8
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
Bob will start by using your suggested example. Let's see how that goes for him.
I don't think that's how the conversation would go. Clearly both of us know what "exist" means, and at some point, the term was explained to us.

indistinguishable from the Christian God
I'll just repeat what I said before, since I think it addresses this. God is typically defined as having absolute knowledge, in the same way that a person "knows" they are sentient or feel pain. (I think, therefore I am.) Even if the pain is purely psychological, it's still "pain" in that a person is experiencing it. It's odd to think of someone "knowing" absolute truths in this way, but that's what "all-knowing" means. God has the same amount of certainty that he exists outside of time that we have in knowing we exist. So "absolute knowledge" cannot exist unless the thing God is certain of is true. If it were false, God wouldn't be certain of it. So the two Gods aren't identical, since one has absolute certainty he is all-powerful, and the other one doesn't.
Topic's author
#9
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Savant
I don't think that's how the conversation would go. Clearly both of us know what "exist" means, and at some point, the term was explained to us.
Alice doesn't. She had never heard in before, for whatever reason, and now she heard it somewhere, and she wanted Bob to explain it to her. Do you think you could do a better job then Bob? Actually, I think I already know what you would say. You would say that by that point, Alice would have figured it out, I just deliberately wrote the conversation in such a way that she simply confuses Bob. How about this: Alice has a rare mental condition. She has no built in sense reality. She sees dreams the same way she sees reality. She considers imagining that vacation to Narnia the same thing as having actually taken a vacation to Narnia. You have been assigned to help her out. She is not inherently incapable of understand what reality is, she just doesn't have a built in sense of it. Good luck!

So the two Gods aren't identical, since one has absolute certainty he is all-powerful, and the other one doesn't.
Identical and indistinguishable aren't the same word. It is possible for a god not to be all-knowing and for it still to be indistinguishable from our human perspective from a god that is all-knowing.
#10
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
She is not inherently incapable of understand what reality is, she just doesn't have a built in sense of it. Good luck!
This is getting to the point that I'm not sure what relevance it has to Last Thursdayism.

for it still to be indistinguishable from our human perspective from a god that is all-knowing.
This seems to be an argument that God could be lying about his power or just insane. In that case, it's simply skepticism towards the existence of the Christian god rather than an argument that he would be susceptible to Last Thursdayism.

That said, the only argument designed to prove God with 100% certainty (Ontological) would argue that God cannot lose his power. Kalam argues that events require causes, so adherents to it would argue that God cannot lose his power without cause.

Christians posit that God probably exists currently with x, y, an z attributes. Your initial argument seemed to be that if such a god does exist, he can lose his power. But now you simply seem to be casting doubt on such a God existing in the first place. So I think that this is a different argument than the one you started with.
Topic's author
#11
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Savant
This is getting to the point that I'm not sure what relevance it has to Last Thursdayism.
I used the Alice and Bob scenario to challenge the well-defined nature of "exist." You rejected it. I am now challenging that rejection.

This seems to be an argument that God could be lying about his power or just insane. In that case, it's simply skepticism towards the existence of the Christian god rather than an argument that he would be susceptible to Last Thursdayism.
Not lying, just not as powerful as He thinks He is.

That said, the only argument designed to prove God with 100% certainty (Ontological) would argue that God cannot lose his power. Kalam argues that events require causes, so adherents to it would argue that God cannot lose his power without cause.
At least one event didn't have a cause. Otherwise nothing would exist, including God. Not to mention that quantum mechanics proves that the universe is non-deterministic, so there are causeless events occurring right this second.

Christians posit that God probably exists currently with x, y, an z attributes. Your initial argument seemed to be that if such a god does exist, he can lose his power. But now you simply seem to be casting doubt on such a God existing in the first place. So I think that this is a different argument than the one you started with.
No, it isn't different, it was a clarification of my original argument. Also, when did I cast doubt on such a God existing? If I did, it was unintentional, and not relevant to my argument.

#12
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I used the Alice and Bob scenario to challenge the well-defined nature of "exist."
Sure, but that seems separate from the argument you are making about God.

not as powerful as He thinks He is.
And I'm arguing that that's impossible. The Christian god is defined as being absolutely certain of his power—it's impossible to be 100% certain of something that is false.

one event didn't have a cause
God is defined as existing outside of time, so his existence is not an event, chronologically speaking.

quantum mechanics
I've got issues with that assumption, but it feels largely tangential to what we're discussing.
Topic's author
#13
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
Sure, but that seems separate from the argument you are making about God.
Yes, certainly. Both are relevant to my original post, though.

And I'm arguing that that's impossible. The Christian god is defined as being absolutely certain of his power—it's impossible to be 100% certain of something that is false.
But this isn't the Christian God. We just can't tell the difference between it and the Christian God.

God is defined as existing outside of time, so his existence is not an event, chronologically speaking.
That wasn't the only argument I used for the existence of an event with no cause.

I've got issues with that assumption, but it feels largely tangential to what we're discussing.
The "assumption" the modern science is accurate? What's wrong with it? I used it for my argument, and I used it effectively.
#14
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
  1. Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
Existence defined: A state of being

Definition explained: It covers everything that isn’t absent.

  1. If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
They exist in a state of believing in Last-Thursdayism.

This was a pretty easy challenge.
Topic's author
#15
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
Existence defined: A state of being

Definition explained: It covers everything that isn’t absent.
I'm thinking of a unicorn right now. Does it exist?

If you said "yes":

Existence as defined by you is then not a very useful concept. Anything and everything imaginable or even theoretically definable exists.

If you said "no":

But it is not absent! It isn't absent from my mind! I anticipate that you will respond with "but it is absent from external reality." What is "reality?" Awfully hard to define reality without "exist" (or something synonymous to it) isn't it?

If you said "It exists in your mind, but not outside of it.":*

I'm looking at a computer screen right now. Does it exist outside of my mind? I see it, but that is still within my mind. Does anything exist outside of the mind? If not, then existence as defined by you is not a very useful concept. Anything and everything imaginable will exist within the mind, but not elsewhere. If so, then what does that mean? That it exists in external reality? What is "reality?" Awfully hard to define reality without "exist" (or something synonymous to it) isn't it?

They exist in a state of believing in Last-Thursdayism.

This was a pretty easy challenge.
Who is "they?" Also you haven't disproven or for that matter proven Last-Thursdayism.


*If you noticed that I repeated myself word for word here, I was assuming that you would only read the one which corresponds to your response to my question, so I didn't want to say "as I said in the section," but rather, I wanted to keep everything in the same place.
#16
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I'm thinking of a unicorn right now. Does it exist?
It exists as you thinking of a unicorn. So yes.

If you said "yes":

Existence as defined by you is then not a very useful concept. Anything and everything imaginable or even theoretically definable exists.
Last-Thursdayism isn’t a useful concept. 

Who is "they?" Also you haven't disproven or for that matter proven Last-Thursdayism.
The people who believe in Last-Thursdayism.
And I didn’t know I had to prove or disprove said belief.


Topic's author
#17
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
Last-Thursdayism isn’t a useful concept. 
You're deflecting.

The people who believe in Last-Thursdayism.
And I didn’t know I had to prove or disprove said belief.
You thought that this was about the people who believe in Last-Thursdayism? This was in my original post: 

 Last-Thursdayism is a belief (which, to my knowledge, no one actually holds)
Why would this discussion be about some non-existent group of people? It's about the belief itself.
#18
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
You're deflecting.
My answer is as useful as the belief of Last-Thursdayism. Is that better?

Why would this discussion be about some non-existent group of people? It's about the belief itself.
For it to be a belief, there would need to be people (hypothetical or not) believing it.

You’re trying to make this into a debate, in which you can’t win.
Topic's author
#19
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
My answer is as useful as the belief of Last-Thursdayism. Is that better?
No. Unlike Last-Thursdayism, the concept of existence has legitimate importance. Under your definition of existence, everything imaginable or even so much as theoretically definable exists. Basically, you have rendered "exist" meaningless. Allow me to give an example of how damaging this is: Did you drive to work yesterday, or did you walk? Simple question, right? Well, it effectively means this: Did there exist a point in time yesterday at which you drove to work, or did there instead exist a point in time at which you walked? So this question would be rendered meaningless. That question, and so many others.

For it to be a belief, there would need to be people (hypothetical or not) believing it.

You’re trying to make this into a debate, in which you can’t win.
What? Okay, your first sentence here is a matter of semantics, and is entirely beside the point. As to your second sentence, I have no idea where you got that from.
#20
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
No. Unlike Last-Thursdayism, the concept of existence has legitimate importance. Under your definition of existence, everything imaginable or even so much as theoretically definable exists. Basically, you have rendered "exist" meaningless. Allow me to give an example of how damaging this is: Did you drive to work yesterday, or did you walk? Simple question, right? Well, it effectively means this: Did there exist a point in time yesterday at which you drove to work, or did there instead exist a point in time at which you walked? So this question would be rendered meaningless. That question, and so many others.
Like it or not Last-Thursdayism exists as a belief within your hypothetical world. You can’t escape that fact.

What? Okay, your first sentence here is a matter of semantics, and is entirely beside the point. As to your second sentence, I have no idea where you got that from.
Besides the point? Interesting. 
Topic's author
#21
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
Like it or not Last-Thursdayism exists as a belief within your hypothetical world. You can’t escape that fact.
Did you read a single word of what I actually wrote? I literally acknowledged that Last-Thursdayism is of no importance to the real world:

Unlike Last-Thursdayism, the concept of existence has legitimate importance.

Key word: Unlike. This entire paragraph that you quoted was about the concept of existence, and not Last-Thursdayism. The above is the only time it is mentioned. Please read the paragraph, and then try responding again. (Hint: If your response is about how Last-Thursdayism doesn't exist/isn't important, then your response isn't relevant to what I wrote.)

Besides the point? Interesting. 
Okay, so this kind of thing counts as an argument? Interesting. Seriously though, this isn't about whether or not people believe this, so yes, that is besides the point, and you made absolutely no effort to defend your second sentence, which was the following baseless assertion:

You’re trying to make this into a debate, in which you can’t win.

Am I trying to make this into a debate? No, it already is a debate. This is literally a debate cite. As to the second part of your statement, is this a debate I can't win? I don't see why that would be the case, and I will remind you once again, you have made no effort to explain this. You simply say "No, you can't win!" and call it quits. That's not an argument.
#22
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
You made a challenge intending to prove a point, in which I dismantled. Make a challenge that’s foolproof.

Topic's author
#23
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
To be more accurate:

I made a challenge intending to prove a point, which you attempted to dismantle. I provided a counter-argument, and you blatantly ignored it, substituting arguments with things like "Besides the point? Interesting." My challenge may or may not be foolproof, but it certainly hasn't been dismantled yet.
#24
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
To be even more accurate you think beliefs don’t exist.

#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,014
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Belief is an internal electro-chemical process, and occurs as such.

Whether or not said process constitutes existence, is negotiable.

Do thoughts exist or just occur?
Topic's author
#26
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, irrelevant to this discussion, and not even really a criticism, given that it can be argued that beliefs don't exist, as pointed out by zedvictor4.

#27
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I didn’t reply to Zed because it’s a blatant false dichotomy. But yeah, sure, everything can be argued, just like the existence of the belief of Last-Thursdayism in your hypothetical. 
Topic's author
#28
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
Oh look! You're continuing to respond to only the parts of my posts that are easy to target out of context! Perhaps we could have an actual discussion of you could not do that! Let me spell things out:

What you would like to imagine I said:

Yeah, I do believe that, and zedvictor4 defended it!

What I actually said (word for word!):

What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, irrelevant to this discussion, and not even really a criticism, given that it can be argued that beliefs don't exist, as pointed out by zedvictor4.

The part you ignored (isolated):

What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, and irrelevant to this discussion.

So in case the above isn't clear enough: I don't believe that, I don't know why I think you do, and it doesn't matter anyway.


While were at it, (don't continue to cherry-pick what you respond to by responding only to this part) I can actually defend zedvictor4's argument. It doesn't depend on any dichotomy, false or otherwise. Key word: depend. It did include a dichotomy, but I don't think it was intended to be interpreted as a strict dichotomy. The point is that there is a reasonable notion of existence under which thoughts do not exist.
#29
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast

What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, and irrelevant to this discussion.

So in case the above isn't clear enough: I don't believe that, I don't know why I think you do, and it doesn't matter anyway.
My original post:

  1. Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
Existence defined: A state of being

Definition explained: It covers everything that isn’t absent.

2.   If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
They exist in a state of believing in Last-Thursdayism.

This was a pretty easy challenge.
I don’t know why you’re bothering to debate this other than for a damaged ego.

While were at it, (don't continue to cherry-pick what you respond to by responding only to this part) I can actually defend zedvictor4's argument. It doesn't depend on any dichotomy, false or otherwise. Key word: depend. It did include a dichotomy, but I don't think it was intended to be interpreted as a strict dichotomy. The point is that there is a reasonable notion of existence under which thoughts do not exist.
Zed’s statement was a false dichotomy between existence and occurrence. Now you’re adding colloquial notions of thoughts having to be verified by external means for them to qualify. Or am I just being too charitable? Thoughts themselves exist irregardless of external factors. 


Topic's author
#30
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 189
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
I don’t know why you’re bothering to debate this other than for a damaged ego.
Oh don't worry that was the last chance I was going to give you not to do that whole cherry-picking what you respond to. Actually, I'm a nice person: I will respond to you again, just not until you actually respond to what I wrote. I trust that you can figure that out without me continuing to constantly point out what specifically you blatantly ignored and/or misrepresented.