RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 4:50:49 PM)

Was it Rodin who said, "You may not be understood at first"?  I can't find the quote, but it's something like that.



Real0ne -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I'm going to let the "if God will die"/validity-of-statistics argument go.. I'm not sure if we're willing and able to come to an agreed conclusion on it.

For the proof part, though, the proof's saying that, since God can't be immortal, but part of his definition is that he is immortal, he can't exist by definition, making him defined as fictional.  (Being the conclusion of the proof, that God isn't real.)


if god were to die than you can no longer use the label god since god by definition cannot die.  you are then forced to use a different label




Keirkegaard would point out that if you label God, you negate him.

Sinergy


oh man now there is a name i havent heard in a very long time!



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:17:52 PM)

I agree the ridiculous is possible.  That's why I'm talking about the possibility of existence of a God-like being with incredible scope, control, strength, and intelligence.

But some things aren't possible.. they're ideas that can't be.  Like an item can't have exactly 10 protons in it but also have exactly 11 protons in it.  "Exactly" means it has "this and only this"- and 10 and 11 don't equal eachother.  Therefore, anything having both exactly 10 and 11 protons in it can't exist.

God can't be immortal.  This is because immortality is impossible.  I spent most of the proof going on about it.  A being defined as immortal, such as God, can't exist.

I'm not getting how this might be not be agreed upon?



Sinergy -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:36:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:



Keirkegaard would point out that if you label God, you negate him.

Sinergy


oh man now there is a name i havent heard in a very long time!



You know it is in juliaoceania's signature, right?

Sinergy

p.s.  My current dock bag denizen is Neitsche.



Real0ne -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:39:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I agree the ridiculous is possible.  That's why I'm talking about the possibility of existence of a God-like being with incredible scope, control, strength, and intelligence.

But some things aren't possible.. they're ideas that can't be.  Like an item can't have exactly 10 protons in it but also have exactly 11 protons in it.  "Exactly" means it has "this and only this"- and 10 and 11 don't equal eachother.  Therefore, anything having both exactly 10 and 11 protons in it can't exist.

God can't be immortal.  This is because immortality is impossible.  I spent most of the proof going on about it.  A being defined as immortal, such as God, can't exist.

I'm not getting how this might be not be agreed upon?



be·ing (bng)
n.
1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.
2.
a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.
3.
a. A person: "The artist after all is a solitary being" Virginia Woolf.
b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.
conj. Chiefly Southern U.S., Upper Southern U.S., & New England
Because; since. Often used with as or that.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun    1.    being - the state or fact of existing; "a point of view gradually coming into being"; "laws in existence for centuries"
beingness, existence
state - the way something is with respect to its main attributes; "the current state of knowledge"; "his state of health"; "in a weak financial state"
actuality - the state of actually existing objectively; "a hope that progressed from possibility to actuality"
timeless existence, timelessness, eternity - a state of eternal existence believed in some religions to characterize the afterlife
preexistence - existing in a former state or previous to something else
coexistence - existing peacefully together
subsistence - the state of existing in reality; having substance
presence - the state of being present; current existence; "he tested for the presence of radon"
life - the course of existence of an individual; the actions and events that occur in living; "he hoped for a new life in Australia"; "he wanted to live his own life without interference from others"
aliveness, animation, living, life - the condition of living or the state of being alive; "while there's life there's hope"; "life depends on many chemical and physical processes"
life - a characteristic state or mode of living; "social life"; "city life"; "real life"
transcendence, transcendency - a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience
possibleness, possibility - capability of existing or happening or being true; "there is a possibility that his sense of smell has been impaired"
nonbeing - the state of not being

   2.    being - a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently
organism
animate thing, living thing - a living (or once living) entity
benthos - organisms (plants and animals) that live at or near the bottom of a sea




Real0ne -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:41:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:



Keirkegaard would point out that if you label God, you negate him.

Sinergy


oh man now there is a name i havent heard in a very long time!



You know it is in juliaoceania's signature, right?

Sinergy

p.s.  My current dock bag denizen is Neitsche.


i have neitzches "beyond good and evil" which is one of my favorites



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:43:05 PM)

Okay, some things, annoy me.  But this is just funny.

Real- "being" was a verb in that quote.  You looked up the wrong part of speech.  :P

(Not that I'm exactly sure why you defined a word for me.. did someone need it or something?)



Real0ne -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:48:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Okay, some things, annoy me.  But this is just funny.

Real- "being" was a verb in that quote.  You looked up the wrong part of speech.  :P

(Not that I'm exactly sure why you defined a word for me.. did someone need it or something?)



er yah you did because if you want to talk with a theologin he will present it to you the very same way.  i am not sure it is clear that your usage is a verb but it doesnt really matter.

in fact i have heard it said that god is the supreme being, but i am not sure that is official



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 5:54:06 PM)

Probably (would "present it to [me] in the same way".)  Or something else.  May just rant about faith.  Someone like that has too much to lose in honestly questioning fiath.  Or, perhaps I underestimate him, and he would concede his faith- but that may well be unlikely.

And.. it betters, because, well, the verb "be" in the progressive sense is pretty different from the noun "being", despite being homonyms.  That, plus it was something I can tease you about that I don't think anyone could misunderstand.

Edit:  The post this was in response to was a post that was annexed with the below quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

in fact i have heard it said that god is the supreme being, but i am not sure that is official


Yeah, you're right, that is an official belief.

But you can't just say "a Xyz is a being of both exactly 1 and 2 units of mass at all times"- as it's a contradiction- and calling it a "being" doesn't change this fact.



Real0ne -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 6:02:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Probably (would "present it to [me] in the same way".)  Or something else.  May just rant about faith.  Someone like that has too much to lose in honestly questioning fiath.  Or, perhaps I underestimate him, and he would concede his faith- but that may well be unlikely.

And.. it betters, because, well, the verb "be" in the progressive sense is pretty different from the noun "being", despite being homonyms.  That, plus it was something I can tease you about that I don't think anyone could misunderstand.


it really does not change anythign about my position however.  i do not see you making a credible argument against the immortality of god.   as far as the existance of god i wont touch that one, that is a dance that will never end.



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 6:16:07 PM)

It's fine.. I thnk I was just overestimating.  We can pretty much drop the subject.



Real0ne -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 6:30:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's fine.. I thnk I was just overestimating.  We can pretty much drop the subject.


serioulsy unless someone else wants to pick up the ball, you need to argue your position with a theologian.  frankly i do not think you will get to far.  i have no idea what you could have expected from this.   i simply do not see the arguments you made as valid maybe someone else does and maybe they have something to say about it.  but that is my position and i would rather not waste my time on it franly LOL  i spent years arguing about god when i was your age lol



dcnovice -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 8:10:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

<snip>

God can't be immortal.  This is because immortality is impossible.  I spent most of the proof going on about it.  A being defined as immortal, such as God, can't exist.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

— Hamlet I.5.187

quote:

I'm not getting how this might be not be agreed upon?


I can see how that might be frustrating. If it makes you feel any better I'm equally unswayed by proof-style arguments for the existence of God. Just not the way my brain works, I guess. It's been fun wrestling with this, though.




dcnovice -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 8:11:47 PM)

quote:

i spent years arguing about god when i was your age lol


Same here. The thread brought me back to taking "The Problem of God" first year in college.



Termyn8or -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/27/2007 10:35:02 PM)

So the topic of the OP was why are genius' crazy.

Now we have indeed my friends, found the answer. They think they are smart enough to successfuly debate the existence of God.

I rest my case.

T



luckydog1 -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/28/2007 12:08:42 PM)

Well I am back from a weekend of no internet, no cell phones, and paryting out in the woods.  Glad others ran with the ball while I was gone.

Cl you said"

I'm going to let the "if God will die"/validity-of-statistics argument go.. I'm not sure if we're willing and able to come to an agreed conclusion on it.

For the proof part, though, the proof's saying that, since God can't be immortal, but part of his definition is that he is immortal, he can't exist by definition, making him defined as fictional.  (Being the conclusion of the proof, that God isn't real.) 
 
This is exactly error B.  You have never proved that God is Immortal (nor even prooved that Christianity does, they use the different word "eternal" perhaps in your made up language they are the same, but they are not in the real world).  You statistical sample of life, other than what we have observed on our world is ZERO.  You have no statstistical argument at all.  You have no Data whatsoever to use, yet claim a result as Fact.  Any person would laugh at your assertion of a conclusion from a data set of zero.  This is Error B in all its glory.  I am glad you have admittted that it is the crux of your argument.  It is simply your opinion, and not a valid proof of anything.  It would get you a F in any logic class.  I see why you have to use a made up language (that avoids any need for review of your arguments rather nicely) to pretend to be smarter than us poo flinging apes ( ironically I scored 2 points below Genius on my IQ test also), while being unable to answer simple direct questions to your argument.  That such  a certified expert as a HS guidance councilor says you are a super genious means not much to me.
    You have more than once in here stated that only people with something to lose (thoelogians or faithful) could disagree with you.  But it is obvious to most everyone here that you have far more to lose than either of them.  Consider the possibility that people do not get your arguments or like you not because you are so smart, but because you are arrogant and not very smart at all(strawmen arguments and error B come on).  You have much to lose in admitting error.  Which is why you have been afraid to adress my direct questions to you.

 You have a data set of zero on the  make up and charactaristics of non corpreal beings, yet pretend you have a ststistical argument that they must die.  Not a fact or valid premise, pure opinion on your part.

For the proof part, though, the proof's saying that, since God can't be immortal, but part of his definition is that he is immortal, he can't exist by definition, making him defined as fictional.  (Being the conclusion of the proof, that God isn't real.)   So the premise of your agrument is "I said so, and I am a super genious, my HS councilor said so".  Not much of a proof at all.



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/28/2007 1:14:12 PM)

Look buddy.
-I cited a site saying God was immortal.
-"Immortal" means you don't die.  Check a dictionary.
-I disproved immortality.
-Statistics is valid.  Go ask a casino how they're so damn rich if you want proof.
-Hell, the computer you're on is relying on statistics to function.

And.. meh.  Beyond this, I'm sorry.  I've made a point with proof.. one that, as I'm sure, isn't orginial- it's probably been understood by many before.  If you're not able to grasp the concepts, I mean, I.. I just don't have the patience or concern to shove it down anyone's throat, you know?

For anyone that does not accept my argument, or one to a similar comclusion: Pascal's Wager.  It's baiscally saying that, if you don't know if God exists or not, assume he does, and follow the teachings, as immortality of bliss over damnation is worth the expense of a small life,if there's even a chance of it being true.

I argue against the existence of immortality for the sake of invalidiating Pascal's Wager- to finally be able to know I need not waste my mortal coil on serving the fictional dreams of mad and power-hungry men from ancient days and their like-minded brothern up until the present.



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/28/2007 1:17:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

So the topic of the OP was why are genius' crazy.

Now we have indeed my friends, found the answer. They think they are smart enough to successfuly debate the existence of God.

I rest my case.


I'm.. trying to figure out.. was this a joke or an actual statement in favor of intellectual surrender..?



CuriousLord -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/28/2007 1:28:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

<snip>

God can't be immortal.  This is because immortality is impossible.  I spent most of the proof going on about it.  A being defined as immortal, such as God, can't exist.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

— Hamlet I.5.187


Quoting a romantic notion- one that's made by a fictional character in a play made for entertainment- and one that's not even applicable to the situation- is basically as bad as having faith.


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

I'm not getting how this might be not be agreed upon?


I can see how that might be frustrating. If it makes you feel any better I'm equally unswayed by proof-style arguments for the existence of God. Just not the way my brain works, I guess. It's been fun wrestling with this, though.


Yeah, it is frustrating.  Still, to accept such a proof is to accept a limit to a world view.  I value such a thing- I do wish to eliminate the impossible.  But to eliminate anything, I can sympathize with, limits the extent of the wonderment in the universe.. it can cut down on the beauty one might preceive.

Certainly, many would argue a Godless universe would seem cold and cruel in contrast.  Still, I argue truth before beauty.

quote:

ORGINIAL: Albert Einstein

If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.



dcnovice -> RE: So Why Are All The Genius's Insane? (5/28/2007 2:14:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

So the topic of the OP was why are genius' crazy.

Now we have indeed my friends, found the answer. They think they are smart enough to successfuly debate the existence of God.

I rest my case.

T


[sm=biggrin.gif] [sm=biggrin.gif] [sm=biggrin.gif] [sm=biggrin.gif]

Ah, but am I crazy because I debate the existence of God, or do I debate because I'm crazy?!



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625