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

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



Message

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 11:30:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

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.



Thank you for that explanation, I always enjoy learning about the idiosyncrasies of other languages. English is my third language, so I'm sure as heck not always perfect in it.

As Arpig pointed out, the rule of the game are that you're not allowed to question definitions, so while I understood what he meant, I had no other option but to simply reply to the question as stated, and not as I understood him to mean.

Luckily, it seems he finally understood also, so we can move on. [:)]



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 11:43:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

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?


I think the problem that I'm having here is that, the basis of my agnosticism is based on my own personal perceptions of what I know to be fact versus things that I don't know.

I do not know of any being named Azonier, so I can't confirm or deny the existence of Azonier.



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 12:40:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

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.



Sure, slightly edited from an online dictionary:

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshipped by a people, especially one thought to control some part of nature or reality.

But if you want you can just limit it to Jesus or something...I'm agnostic regarding Jesus too, I don't know if he was an aspect of divinity or if he existed, I don't believe but I don't disbelieve etc.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 1:53:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
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?

Yes
No
No
Yes


Ok, Ishtarr, now please observe the following:

- By modus tolendo tolens, a logical rule, if A implies B, automatically no-B implies no-A . Please note that I am not saying that not-A implies no-B, this is a common mistake and a fallacy. But no-B does imply no-A.

* Do you agree?

- Therefore, if the existence of Ishoser imply that you have no nose, then the existence of your nose implies that there is no Ishoser.

* Do you agree?

- Therefore, please explain me how can you say that you have a nose, and at the same time say that you cannot deny the existence of Ishoser, being that you are actually doing it in the moment you say that you have a nose.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 1:55:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I think the problem that I'm having here is that, the basis of my agnosticism is based on my own personal perceptions of what I know to be fact versus things that I don't know.

I do not know of any being named Azonier, so I can't confirm or deny the existence of Azonier.


Ok, Zonie63.

Next question:

According to the very definition of Azonier, if he exists, you have no nose. This is included in the definition.

Do you agree that, if Azonier exists, your nose does not? if not - why?

Please realise, I am not saying that Azonier exists. I am not saying that your nose does not exist. I am saying that **IF** Azonier exists, automatically and by definition (of Azonier), your nose does not.

Best regards.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 2:01:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

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.



Sure, slightly edited from an online dictionary:

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshipped by a people, especially one thought to control some part of nature or reality.

But if you want you can just limit it to Jesus or something...I'm agnostic regarding Jesus too, I don't know if he was an aspect of divinity or if he existed, I don't believe but I don't disbelieve etc.


Hello again, imperatrixx.

Ok, so God would be:
- A being worshiped by people.
- which controls some part of nature or reality
- and has supernatural powers OR has supernatural attributes (or both, a logical "OR" includes that possibility).

That looks pretty concrete to me. It does not look like your reason of being agnostic is that you do not know what the word means or something like that. Can you please explain me again why are you agnostic? I understood your first answer as "I do not really know what that words means" and it looks like you do.



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 2:09:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

That looks pretty concrete to me. It does not look like your reason of being agnostic is that you do not know what the word means or something like that. Can you please explain me again why are you agnostic? I understood your first answer as "I do not really know what that words means" and it looks like you do.



Because I don't know what God would be. I can say how I feel about all the main gods in main religions which is also agnostic (don't believe, don't disbelieve) and beyond that I don't even know if all of them could possibly be right.

To me, that definition is abstract. I'm not going to worship "a supernatural being who controls some part of nature or reality who is worshipped by people" because what is that? I'm not going to worship an abstract concept.

I guess to sum it up if you asked me...Does ___________ exist (fill in blank with Jehovah/Krishna/Allah/god of choice) I'd say...I don't know, I can't say. But if you asked me "Does any form of God exist" I'd say...I don't know...but it seems more likely than to say it about the specific one.

If that makes sense?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 2:21:25 AM)

It does make sense, imperatrixx, even mathematical sense.

Any concrete god (we use "your" definition here) can be described as "A being such as A (worship), B (control), and C (powers) or D (attributes)... and also E (for example "was crucified") and F (for example "has three persons") and..."

The probability of the existence of any being which requires ONLY A, B and C or D, will be always be (equal or) higher as the probability of any being which requires more, additional characteristics. So, what you say makes sense. [sm=agree.gif]

Ok then. Next question.

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 civilization 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 imperatrixx. 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?



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 2:45:05 AM)

* Can you affirm that Unoser exists? I could but I won't

* Can you deny that Unoser exists? Yes and I do



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 2:56:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx
* Can you deny that Unoser exists? Yes and I do


Ok.

Why?



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 2:59:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx
* Can you deny that Unoser exists? Yes and I do


Ok.

Why?



Because I am confident enough in my belief that he doesn't exist to take a stand and deny it.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 3:12:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx
* Can you deny that Unoser exists? Yes and I do

Ok.
Why?

Because I am confident enough in my belief that he doesn't exist to take a stand and deny it.


Ehm.. and why?

Sorry, this is not a childish game, but I really have to know if you have any reasoning behind, or not, and which is it in the case that you have.

So... why are you confident enough in your belief that he does not exist?



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 3:23:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Ehm.. and why?

Sorry, this is not a childish game, but I really have to know if you have any reasoning behind, or not, and which is it in the case that you have.

So... why are you confident enough in your belief that he does not exist?



I don't have any logical reasoning behind it, no. It just seems false to me, I don't feel uncertain about it. And I suppose it also has to do with the fact that it doesn't affect me in any meaningful way, sure I lose a nose, but I gain a synthetic nose that is in no way different. I mean if the "god" debate were about a creature that just started the big bang and that's it, people wouldn't care as much, it's the direct intervention in people's lives thing that gets them interested.



Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 3:41:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
despite being 99% space

Heh. [:D]

By the way, I'm glad you don't like cigars. When you figure out the difference between experiencing things as solid (because of the strong force) and them actually being solid (using the English definition of the word) you may have a cookie instead.

K.

Little surprise you missed the essence of the point in post 119 but I thought even you could do better. This is the point again - atoms being the building blocks of matter essentially make up matter which (dealing with perception initially) is the sole substance that can constitute both solid objects and objects that we would not describe as solid. In actuality, rather than perception, it is not right to say matter is not solid by saying that that atoms which make up the constituents of matter cause matter not to be solid. Firstly an object can be said to be solid by being a strong object with real integrity as an atom clearly is found to be (see definition). Furthermore it is reducing and confusing the sum (matter) with the parts (atoms) of which matter constitutes, hence my point about there being differing levels to our perception of reality that may at times contradict each other but are not illusory. We experience matter as solid and it quite literally is solid. The wording you use is also problematic. For one so supposedly well up on the English language, here is a definition of solid which illustrates that objects need not be made of contiguous matter to be described as "solid" whether in experience or actuality. Might I suggest you spend some of that hard-earned money of yours on a dictionary rather than cigars and cookies?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 3:44:04 AM)

Hello, imperatrixx:

well, I can define a new being who also will punish you with eternal torment after death if you had no nose.

But would this change your answer "no, Unoser does not exist"? I very much doubt it.

So, you deny the existence of Unoser because it "seems false to you" and "you don't feel uncertain" about it. But you do not have any logical reason behind it.

This kind of makes impossible to play a game made of logical reasoning. But I will make a last attempt:

In the posting #167 you say that you do not deny nor affirm the existence of God because you "don't know what God would be".

But any God you can think about (for example, the Christian one) can have also its variations. There are thousands of ways of understanding God, by Christians, and different to each other. So, if I told you "the Christian" you could still say "but I don't know what Christian God would be".

Your agnosticism does not seem, therefore, to depend on the fact that there will be, always, different forms to understand "God".

Sticking to your definition, then... using only that definition. Which determines a concrete meaning, an therefore a "God" which "would be": why are you agnostic?

You told me that the concept was vague. But now it is not, we have a concept. Your definition.
You told me that you do not know which God would be. But any concept of God (and of Unoser) will include variations (you also do not know which Unoser would be, and still you deny it). So this also cannot be the reason.

Is there a logical argument at all, which supports your agnosticism?



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 4:20:42 AM)

quote:

Ehm.. and why?
Because her glasses didn't fall off her face?

quote:

Sorry, this is not a childish game
[:D][:D][:D][:D]



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 4:38:53 AM)

quote:

Is there a logical argument at all, which supports your agnosticism?


No, not really. Just my lack of certainty.

I mean really there's no logical argument for any of it. Neither atheism nor theism are based on logical certainty, they're based on belief. If it turns out an atheist is incorrect, it doesn't mean he's not an atheist, it just means he's an incorrect atheist. His conviction of belief is what defines him as one, not his inability to err.

I might be incorrect about Unoser's existence. You never know. But you can believe ;)



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 4:50:22 AM)

The only way to win this game is not to play it.



imperatrixx -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 4:59:06 AM)

How about a nice game of chess?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 5:03:08 AM)

Hello, imperatrix.

And you lack of certainty is also not based on any logical argument. Same as your non-lack of enough certainty to affirm that Unoser, contrary to God, does not exist.

Well then :) Good luck. The game is, as I told, a game on logic and arguments. No arguments, no game.

quote:

How about a nice game of chess?

I'd rather play Global Thermonuclear War, thank you.

Best regards.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875