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

anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:57:09 PM)
uh oh.....i'm skerred :)

Moonhead -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:58:13 PM)
Sorry, I couldn't resist a crap joke about that: SpanishHat has three quarters of the board on ignore...

anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:59:43 PM)
oh ok...then he is just talking to himself. That clears things up

Moonhead -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 1:02:41 PM)
Yep. There's a couple of posters who are quite offended that he hasn't put them on ignore yet...

anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 1:04:12 PM)
lol....well if we haven't made the ignore list yet, we never will.

Moonhead -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 1:05:29 PM)
It's probably just a matter of time. Chin up, you'll get there. [:D]

imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 1:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 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. sure what the hell I'm bored. 1) Why are you agnostic? because all my concepts of god are abstract, undefined, and uncertain. 2) Do you have a nose? yes

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 2:57:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr a) Your nose being removed would mean inevitably that somebody would have noticed. Why exactly? b) Somebody noticing would mean inevitably that you would know. Why exactly? a) Because by Innosers very definition, he couldn't have removed my nose without at least one person noticing the act of the removal. b) Because I consider it against all probability that at least one person witnessing and noticing the act of the removal of my nose wouldn't have reacted to it in some huge way, that even if they didn't tell me at the time, I'd know now by your line of questioning what happened. Ok, now please consider that: a) Contrary to Unoser, Innoser is not defined even as a person. It is a "being". Something existing. Therefore, can you tell me who exactly would be that person who would inevitably notice that you lost your nose? The second argument, I simply did not understand you. b) Why would one person inevitably wintess? b) Why would this person inevitably tell you that you actually have no nose now? c) And why would you inevitably believe him/her? I have the impression that you are trying to substitute a non sequitur with more non sequitur. Are you sure that you want to follow this line? We can end up with hundreds of unbased suppositions from your side, trying to defend your asswetion that if Innoser existed you would know. I'm following your definition of Innoser here. You defined Innoser as a being that cannot be detected by us, who has removed my nose, without the possibility of nobody noticing what he did.. Seeing that part of the qualifying definition of Innoser is that somebody would have had the notice the disappearance of my nose, an nobody actually did, my only logical conclusion is that Innoser does not exist.

Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 4:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Thank you, Zonie. Ok... Now, let me consider a being. I am not saying that he exists, I am only describing a being. I will not enter in your (IMHO wrong) analysis of Innoser. I will just change the subject to avoid it: Its name is Azonier. It is a being such, that it existence implies that you have no longer a nose, even if nobody notices. It is also defined as an imperceptible being. Please note that the very definition says that if it existe you do not longer have a nose. It does not say anything else about the being, about how this happened, or about how do you still have sensations. Azonier could be the matrix, could be a magician, could be anything... but if he exists, you do not have a nose. As simple as this, and please do not redefine "nose" or anything else without warning beforehand. My next questions are: * Can you affirm that Azonier exists? * Can you deny that Azonier exists? The answer would be "no" to both questions. I can not affirm that Azonier exists. From my point of view, I have a nose. I won't try to redefine "nose" for you, but as far as what I understand a "nose" to be, I certainly have one. But on the other hand, I can not deny that Azonier exists either. Given the narrow parameters of the hypothetical you've outlined, you seem to be saying that if I'm given something that isn't my original nose (yet from my point of view, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference), it means the same thing as "no nose." I don't accept that proposition as valid. If, for example, I lost my nose in an accident and required reconstructive surgery, I would still have some sort of "nose" and it would still be mine.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 7:20:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx sure what the hell I'm bored. Well I'm just confused... quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster The game is a questions-and-answers game. * If I can convert you to positive Atheism, you win. Ignoring the smugness of that "you win" bit, I still haven't figured out why this game would convert anyone to "positive Atheism". Anybody have a clue? K.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:27:54 PM)
Hello, imperatrixx: Can you provide a definition of God you agree with? If yes, plese provide it. If not, this game is not for you.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:29:53 PM)
Ishtarr: "Seeing that part of the qualifying definition of Innoser is that somebody would have had the notice the disappearance of my nose" Why exactly? I ask you again and again and I obtain no answer. The game includes that you answer my questions. Why exactly somebody would inevitably have noticed? Why would this person inevitably tell you that you actually have no nose now? And why would you inevitably believe him/her? Please answer all three questions, finally.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:35:22 PM)
Dear Zonie: I did not say that you would get anything. I did say that you would NOT notice the difference between the situation where Azonier exists, and the situation where Azonier does not exist. That is, between the situation between you having a nose, and the situation of you having no nose. These two points in your answer are incorrect :) I let to YOUR imagination to establish possible "Azoniers". For example, the Matrix-scenario, where the prisoners of the "extraterrestrials" (or they equivalents, Matrix is a bit of a stupid film but you get the idea, I hope) remove the noses. A nose is an organ, with physical characteristics. Not only funcional ones, and actually it has NO funcional ones (the nose of a corpse is still a nose). Taking all this in account, please answer again: * Can you affirm that Azonier exists? Why? * Can you deny that Azonier exists? Why?

Arpig -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:38:09 PM)
quote: Anybody have a clue? Not me, he seems to have predetermined the answers he wants, and if somebody doesn't provide them, he gets testy and says the game isn't for them. Witness his reply to Ishtarr, who has answered his questions very clearly, yet he seems to think she hasn't. The only reason I can come up with is that he doesn't want those particular answers, so he will keep asking the same questions until he gets the desired answers so he can move on to the next step of his strange little game. Apparently, he feels it is quite a brilliant expose, but personally I think its rather dumb. Besides, Heather already pointed out where his little game falls apart. quote: I would just put on my glasses. If they stay up unoser doesn't exist.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 10:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Ishtarr: "Seeing that part of the qualifying definition of Innoser is that somebody would have had the notice the disappearance of my nose" Why exactly? I ask you again and again and I obtain no answer. The game includes that you answer my questions. Why exactly somebody would inevitably have noticed? Why would this person inevitably tell you that you actually have no nose now? And why would you inevitably believe him/her? Please answer all three questions, finally. a) Because it's the only way Innoser can exist according to your definition. Your definition specifically states that Innoser is a being that took away my nose WHILE somebody noticed. If nobody noticed, the definition doesn't apply and Innoser doesn't exist... I'm not sure how I can put this more clearly... By your defition of Innoser, the only possible way he could exist is if somebody notices my nose disappearing while he takes it away. You may be confusing Innoser with some of the other entities you've defined, who can take away noses with nobody noticing, but this doesn't apply to Innoser as you've defined him being noticed as a necessary quality to his existence. b) They wouldn't necessarily tell me, but I don't find being told a necessary condition to have proof of the fact that my nose hasn't been replaced while somebody witnessed it. This is because I find it implausible that a person could witness the act of a foreign entity taking away my nose and replacing it without having some sort of reaction to shock to that. Even if they didn't tell me, they'd act very strange all of a sudden. This reaction has never occurred in front of me, therefor, I find it implausible that anybody actually witnessed my nose being replaced by Innoser. c) As outlined in b, I wouldn't have to believe him, because nobody ever told me of this event, nor has anybody reacted in such a way that I may presume that the event could have occurred in the past, which is the reason I'm denying Innosers existence in the first place. I never said that I would believe somebody making such a claim to me, and I most likely wouldn't, but seeing that I didn't claim I would, I'm not sure why you're asking me why I'd believe such a claim.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 10:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Witness his reply to Ishtarr, who has answered his questions very clearly, yet he seems to think she hasn't. Yeah, I'm really confused. I've got plenty of time to waste on this, and I want to see where he's going with it, but he seems to think that I'm not replying when I'm replying the only way I logically can, given his own definitions. I wonder if there is a language barrier at work here, and he doesn't realize that he defined Innoser differently than the other entities, but if that's the case, I'm not sure how I can explain that to him more clearly than I have... I just want the game to go on, cause I want to know how he thinks that this line of questions can possible turn into a conversion in positive Atheism...

Arpig -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 10:44:15 PM)
quote: I wonder if there is a language barrier at work here, and he doesn't realize that he defined Innoser differently than the other entities, but if that's the case, I'm not sure how I can explain that to him more clearly than I have... I think that might be the case, but by the rules of the game you have to accept the definitions as given and not question them.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 11:02:50 PM)
quote: Your definition specifically states that Innoser is a being that took away my nose WHILE somebody noticed. Ah! English was the problem! Ok - then we bring another being: Ishoser = "A being who cannot be detected by us, and who actually removed your nose, without anybody* noticing, with the possible exception of the being itself."* So. No-one noticed. There is not one person who noticed. With one possible exception, Ishoser, but that does not mean that he told you. BTW it may have happened while nobody was there to witness (Ishoser is a possible exception, not a necessary one), or the witnesses could be hidden (you somehow suppose that you can observer the reations, I do not know why), or you could be sleeping or unconscious, or any other possibility. Back to Post #112, now with Ishoser: Do you agree that I am not redefining any word (just defining a new one, Ishoser)? Can you affirm that Ishoser exists? Can you deny that Ishoser exists? Do you agree that if Ishoser exists, your nose does not?

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 11:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Do you agree that I am not redefining any word (just defining a new one, Ishoser)? Can you affirm that Ishoser exists? Can you deny that Ishoser exists? Do you agree that if Ishoser exists, your nose does not? Finally... Yes No No Yes

gungadin09 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 11:16:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr I wonder if there is a language barrier at work here, and he doesn't realize that he defined Innoser differently than the other entities, but if that's the case, I'm not sure how I can explain that to him more clearly than I have... i can explain it. In Spanish they use the double negative, which is why he said, Innoser is a being... who removed your nose without nobody noticing. He made a mistake, translating that directly from Spanish. i'm almost sure he meant to say "without anybody noticing", as he did before. The problem is that saying "without nobody noticing" in Spanish MEANS THE SAME AS "without anybody noticing". He thinks that's what he said. He doesn't understand that you read that and say, "without nobody noticing" means that somebody did notice. That's the confusion. Ask him whether in post #112 he MEANT to say Innoser is a being who cannot be detected, who removed your nose without ANYBODY noticing. pam

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875