RE: A question game for agnostics.

RE: A question game for agnostics. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

wittynamehere -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 10:30:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster * Can you affirm that Unoser exists? * Can you deny that Unoser exists? I'm not sure what the point of this step is, considering everybody's answer MUST be: No and no.

Real0ne -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 12:37:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello, wittynamehere: I will also be patient, forgiving and understanding for the sake of the game... Ok. Now let me consider a being. I am not saying that he exists, I am only describing a being. Its name is "Unoser". He is an extraterrestrial and lives in a planet far beyond the reach of our astronomical instruments. In his planet, the civlization is more than one million years more advanced as the one of the Earth in technology (don't tell me that this is impossible because we won't survive that much, I am just trying to express things in a simple way, not writing a contract with the devil). So, their technology is so extreme that it looks like magic for us. He has a hobby: Around far planets with life, he looks for and internet and then for internet forums. And there, he looks for people whose alias in the forums is wittynamehere. Of course, he uses his extreme technology for this, as well as his extremely advanced mind (so advanced that we cannot even imagine his reasons to do this). And then, when he finds one, he substitutes their nose with an illusion. The substitution is made in such a way, that the technological devices he uses (which can be artificial intelligences far beyond our natural one) influence all the environment. When a victim tries to touch his nose, the mechanisms of the illusion care about that he feels the nose (interfering with the neural channels, maybe). They care that the victims sees the nose in the mirror. They care that a doctor can see it too (even if it is not there, they can also interfere with the doctor's perception). They can change the results of X-Ray analysis, etc, etc, etc... in other words... there is no way, for us, to discover the illusion. And still - it is an illusion. The victim has no longer a nose. And Unoser did found you some time ago. Before you wrote your first message in this thread. Please remember that I define Unoser this way. If something about the being is not like I described, he is no longer Unoser. Unoser is only Unoser if he accomplishes all this definition. My next questions are: * Can you affirm that Unoser exists? * Can you deny that Unoser exists? Best regards. yeh they did a movie about that exact thing actually way back in 1999, check it out MOVIE clip2

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 1:12:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere I'm not sure what the point of this step is, considering everybody's answer MUST be: This is your opinion. Ok, my turn... I have defined Unoser in a certain way. As i told already... if Unoser lacks any single of the things I told, then he is no longer Unoser. This includes, having found you and being able to remove your nose and substitute it. The question now is: * Do you agree, that if Unoser exists, your nose does not (no longer) exist? I am not telling that he exists (A). I am not telling that your nose does not exist (B). I am telling that if A, then B. If you do not agree, please explain briefly why. Thank you.

imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:10:13 AM)
quote: Why exactly you cannot say that Unoser does not exist, on the same terms you used to say "I have a nose"? Unoser doesn't exist. I have a nose. /thread.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 6:40:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx quote: Why exactly you cannot say that Unoser does not exist, on the same terms you used to say "I have a nose"? Unoser doesn't exist. I have a nose. /thread. Dear imperatrix: even with many people speaking off-topic here, I still abide to the OP. If you want to play, please answer the first two questions. If you do not want to play, please abandon this thread. Best regards.

wittynamehere -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 9:47:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere I'm not sure what the point of this step is, considering everybody's answer MUST be: No, and no. This is your opinion. Is it not your opinion also? If not, given the way you've forced certain definitions and worded the rules, is there any way to answer that question differently? Of course there isn't. So you could skip that step altogether and just tell the "player" of this game what their answers are: No, and no. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I have defined Unoser in a certain way. Do you agree, that if Unoser exists, your nose does not? I agree that if your statement "Unoser found you before you wrote your first message in this thread" is correct, and that if Unoser is as you defined it, then my nose must be an illusion. Side note: This makes me want to go back to the original question (you know, the one you said had to be a very short reply) and make a much longer reply. Something to the effect of "I have a nose, or an illusion created by Unoser". Learning the rules and definitions of the game as it progresses means old responses need updating. If you gave all the definitions and rules up front, I would have played differently. But what's next?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 9:50:23 AM)
The only game in this thread is "he who makes the rules wins the game". There are posters here who do it all the time, constantly redefining terms to fit their own worldview.

GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 11:01:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine 1. Agnosticism is the only belief system that adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. If this is the case why did I never hear about the nasal illusions of Unoser in biology class? I recall "now class these are metatarsals" not "now class these might be metatarsals or they could be robot unicorns from the future using advanced cloaking technology". Why is that?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 12:02:33 PM)
Hello, wittynamehere. I won't discuss any other matter besides the game here. quote: I agree that if your statement "Unoser found you before you wrote your first message in this thread" is correct, and that if Unoser is as you defined it, then my nose must be an illusion. Please answer strictily the question, before you say anything else :) . If Unoser exists, then by definition, the statement is correct. If it is not correct, then this X is not Unoser, by definition. And your nose simply does not exist, in this case. Maybe an illusion exists, but not your nose. Again, by definition of Unoser. So, again - do you agree that, if Unoser exists, your nose does not? If you agree, say yes. If you do not agree, say no. Then you can explain everything you want, but whether you agree or you disagree. BTW, if you want to change any previous answer in a significant way (more exactly, if you want to withdraw your plain and clear answer "I have a nose") then we have to start again. Say it, if this is the case, and then simply answer again ithe initial questions of the OP. Unless you do, I suppose that your answers are not changing in any significant way and I ask you to answer the current question. Best regards.

wittynamehere -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 12:50:35 PM)
You win, spanishmat. You play dirty, but you definitely win. Best regards.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 12:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere You win, spanishmat. You play dirty, but you definitely win. Well actually, if he wins, then he hasn't won. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster * If you can show me that my logical demostration is erroneous, I win. K.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster * Can you affirm that Unoser exists? * Can you deny that Unoser exists? No No quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So, again - do you agree that, if Unoser exists, your nose does not? Yes So you've now shown that logically, I cannot prove that my nose exists within the definition you chose for the concept "nose" for the purposed of this "game". (Because using the normal, dictionary definitions of a "nose", the illusion replacement Unoser provides still qualifies in every way as being an actual "nose".) So people, by simple means of their senses and logic, cannot prove or disprove anything without applying context first. I can prove that my nose exists, within the context of the normally agreed upon definition of the word "nose", but that doesn't prove the existence of my "nose" in an absolute sense, in a situation without such of previously agreed upon context. Seeing that I'm incapable of proving or disproving the existence of my nose in an absolute sense, I am also incapable of proving or disproving the existence of Unoser. Therefor, my only logical positions is that of an agnostic concerning the existence of Unoser. Your point being?

gungadin09 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere You win, spanishmat. You play dirty, but you definitely win. i don't see how he's won anything. If Unoser exists, then my nose doesn't, that's true. But that's no profound revelation, that's simply the definition of Unoser that he chose to begin with. If my nose exists, then Unoser doesn't. Although i can't prove it, that's the version i happen to believe; i believe my nose is real and Unoser isn't. If he's arguing that it's not possible to know for sure whether God exists, or even whether my nose exists... well then, he hasn't convinced me of anything because i believed that to begin with. Why MUST anyone choose between denying or affirming the existence of Unoser? Why wouldn't they also have the option to say, i don't know whether Unoser exists, i neither deny nor affirm the existence of such a person? And how was that reasoning supposed to convert anyone to positive atheism? pam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:28:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere You win, spanishmat. You play dirty, but you definitely win. i don't see how he's won anything. If Unoser exists, then my nose doesn't, that's true. But that's no profound revelation, that's simply the definition of Unoser that he chose to begin with. If my nose exists, then Unoser doesn't. Although i can't prove it, that's the version i happen to believe; i believe my nose is real and Unoser isn't. If he's arguing that it's not possible to know for sure whether God exists, or even whether my nose exists... well then, he hasn't convinced me of anything because i believed that to begin with. And how was that reasoning supposed to convert anyone to positive atheism? pam that was never the intent. Like a Rule thread it was intended to show how smart he is, setting up a tautological game.

gungadin09 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy ...it was intended to show how smart he is... Well, frankly, it didn't do that either. pam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy ...it was intended to show how smart he is... Well, frankly, it didn't do that either. pam Hence the use of "intended". [:D]

gungadin09 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:44:46 PM)
While i don't believe in Unoser, i believe in Uthreader. Uthreader is a super-intelligent being with the seemingly supernatural power of causing people on earth to make posts that appear at first to have a point, but then after pages and pages of idle argumentation it is revealed that they never did. All Hail Uthreader!!!!! pam

gungadin09 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Hence the use of "intended". [:D] Got it. pam

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:46:09 PM)
quote: Why wouldn't they also have the option to say, i don't know whether Unoser exists, i neither deny nor affirm the existence of such a person? Or the ever popular "None of the above"

gungadin09 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Or the ever popular "None of the above" Oh, Heather, i love it when you get all Zen on me, baby! pam

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375