RE: Trying

RE: Trying (Full Version)

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

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 3:36:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful. According to logic, all of it is invalid, as Occams razor is in itself just theory. "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on ~~ Walter of Chatton Thanks. However, not very useful unless you use clear arguments. For example... you said that ALL is invalid. Then let us start with (1): You do NOT want to follow a system of reasoning, which allows you to say that you have a nose?

Azonier -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 5:28:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful. According to logic, all of it is invalid, as Occams razor is in itself just theory. "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on ~~ Walter of Chatton Thanks. However, not very useful unless you use clear arguments. For example... you said that ALL is invalid. Then let us start with (1): You do NOT want to follow a system of reasoning, which allows you to say that you have a nose? He does not have a nose either. I took that one in '97. I am, however, (as you can see) quite real. Do I also need to prove to you that God exists as well? Humans...

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (12/5/2011 5:31:38 AM)
THATS funny! Edited because some spanish .. ahem... decided to change the title.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/5/2011 6:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 "God" is not a name; it's a job title. Cool, you referred to it as a job description before, I'm fine with that. Hopefully we're expressing the same thing two different ways. So job, as in doing something. What is Gods job, what is he supposed to be doing? In my opinion, it seems that "God" could be a symbolic representation of whatever force or energy caused the big bang to be set in motion, caused life to develop on Earth, and established the physical laws of our universe. Some might define "God" as the "Creator," at least as far as the basic "job" is concerned. Whether there's truly some higher level intelligence or sentience at work - I don't think anyone can say for certain. Could "God" exist as some intelligent being in a higher level dimension which can not be discerned in our dimension? I don't think there's any way of knowing one way or the other, not yet anyway. This is primarily the reason why I reject religion and why I'm an agnostic, because there's no real way to know for certain, yet religions act like they are certain. This is particularly true when they say things like "God loves you" and "God has a plan for you," implying that God is micromanaging day-to-day affairs here on Earth. They're also setting themselves up as God's spokesmen on Earth, implying that their religion (and theirs alone) is the one true representative of "God" on Earth. That's where the dogma and intolerance comes in, and that's why I tend to resist those who seem far too certain about complex questions like this.

Zonie63 -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 7:06:05 AM)
Oh Mighty Azonier, Many thanks to thee for the illusionary substitute nose thou hast provided. I am, however, plagued by the nose demons which cause me to sneeze during allergy season. Will my nose be sent to the heavenly Sweet Shop in the sky? Or will it end up in the Paper Mill from hell? [;)]

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/5/2011 10:33:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 In my opinion, it seems that "God" could be a symbolic representation of whatever force or energy caused the big bang to be set in motion, caused life to develop on Earth, and established the physical laws of our universe. Some might define "God" as the "Creator," at least as far as the basic "job" is concerned. Whether there's truly some higher level intelligence or sentience at work - I don't think anyone can say for certain. Could "God" exist as some intelligent being in a higher level dimension which can not be discerned in our dimension? I don't think there's any way of knowing one way or the other, not yet anyway. Sure as you've said people view concepts of "God" in different ways. a Deist for instance might define God like the above, a being who sits outside of reality and effects our reality in absolutely no way. Thing is it's my understanding that there aren't that many Deists out there. There might also be a relatively low probability chance that someone is talking about Spinoza's God but the question is are they? Are they really? Is it reasonable to assume that someone is talking about Spinoza's God and inform them that their position is faulty based on that assumption? You've said: ""God" is too general of a term to make any assumptions about." But isn't that exactly what you did in that post? Instead of asking the atheist who made the statement what they meant when they said God it seems like you've filled in your own definition and informed the atheist that their position is without evidence based on your definition of the term God instead of theirs. Isn't it not only possible but exceedingly likely that when an atheist says that there is no God he isn't using some exceedingly uncommon definition such as God as a metaphor for physics or as a blank box that stands for all possible definitions? Isn't it not only possible but exceedingly likely that when an atheist says that there is no God he means what most everybody else does when they use that term?

Politesub53 -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 10:52:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful. According to logic, all of it is invalid, as Occams razor is in itself just theory. "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on ~~ Walter of Chatton Thanks. However, not very useful unless you use clear arguments. For example... you said that ALL is invalid. Then let us start with (1): You do NOT want to follow a system of reasoning, which allows you to say that you have a nose? Lets not, or you will end up looking silly and having to hide me, just as you claim you have with anyone who doesnt agree with you.

Azonier -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Oh Mighty Azonier, Many thanks to thee for the illusionary substitute nose thou hast provided. I am, however, plagued by the nose demons which cause me to sneeze during allergy season. Will my nose be sent to the heavenly Sweet Shop in the sky? Or will it end up in the Paper Mill from hell? [;)] You are welcome, my friend! I cannot tell you what the noses are being used for, it's a huge secret and we'd have a bit of an interplanetary blow up if I told you. I fear I've already revealed too much. Now I may have to call in my friend Nobrainier, to erase from your wee little human minds the plans I inadvertently let slip. It seems easy, this job...take a nose, leave a nose, right? But there's a lot more to it than that, lemme tell ya. Azonier could use a drink.

tazzygirl -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:21:15 PM)
Azonier. I have to ask. If you arent supposed to be perceptible, how are we mere humans reading your words?

Azonier -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:39:05 PM)
You humans are so quaint. Do you really think ~I~, the great Azonier can be held to the silly rules some hat man attempts to dictate? Pffftttt Also, many of your kind lack imagination. They believe only in what they can see, hear, feel, touch, and smell. (even if it's with a borrowed and faux nose) So I decided to show myself. (figuratively) No, I don't really look like some oddly wrinkled furless pussy cat, but it is a fair approximation. I hope this answered your question. And I hope you enjoy your new "nose".

tazzygirl -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:40:30 PM)
I was sorta partial to my old one... but.. eh... if I dont know it changed, no harm, no foul.

Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:41:51 PM)
quote: oddly wrinkled furless pussy I think that will be my new name

Azonier -> RE: Azonier's nose (12/5/2011 12:44:22 PM)
Earthlings are naughty. Azonier likes this!

tazzygirl -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:51:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: oddly wrinkled furless pussy I think that will be my new name Dare you.

Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 12:54:25 PM)
I bet I get thousands on emails!!!!! dammit, it wont let me... I get as far as...wrinklyfurlesspu and it wont let me add anymore...bad form I say, but probably a good thing considering all the funread trouble I could have with it winks at the wrinkly all powerful one tooo

GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 1:51:53 PM)
Thanks, putting everything nice and concisely certainly helped me. Could you explain this: "4. With Occam's Razor, we conclude that the scenarios where 2+2 are not 4 are not real (do not occur)." Because I'm also under the impression that Occam's razor doesn't quite work like that.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/5/2011 3:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Instead of asking the atheist who made the statement what they meant... It sure didn't do much good to ask what the atheist meant when the atheist was you. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Agnosticism (12/5/2011 4:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 "God" is not a name; it's a job title. Cool, you referred to it as a job description before, I'm fine with that. Hopefully we're expressing the same thing two different ways. So job, as in doing something. What is Gods job, what is he supposed to be doing? In my opinion, it seems that "God" could be a symbolic representation of whatever force or energy caused the big bang to be set in motion, caused life to develop on Earth, and established the physical laws of our universe. Some might define "God" as the "Creator," at least as far as the basic "job" is concerned. Whether there's truly some higher level intelligence or sentience at work - I don't think anyone can say for certain. Could "God" exist as some intelligent being in a higher level dimension which can not be discerned in our dimension? I don't think there's any way of knowing one way or the other, not yet anyway. This is primarily the reason why I reject religion and why I'm an agnostic, because there's no real way to know for certain, yet religions act like they are certain. This is particularly true when they say things like "God loves you" and "God has a plan for you," implying that God is micromanaging day-to-day affairs here on Earth. They're also setting themselves up as God's spokesmen on Earth, implying that their religion (and theirs alone) is the one true representative of "God" on Earth. That's where the dogma and intolerance comes in, and that's why I tend to resist those who seem far too certain about complex questions like this. It was probably not intentional but your phraeseology contradicts the point you seem to be trying to make. On one hand you say god is symbolic for a natural force, and then in the same sentence say "established the physical laws of our universe" which implies sentience. A better choice of words might be "resulted in the physical laws". The weak and strong anthropic principles are the precursor to your "symbology" proposition. If the physical laws of our universe werent what they are, we wouldnt be here to worry about whether we were "created" or not.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 9:35:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful. According to logic, all of it is invalid, as Occams razor is in itself just theory. "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on ~~ Walter of Chatton Thanks. However, not very useful unless you use clear arguments. For example... you said that ALL is invalid. Then let us start with (1): You do NOT want to follow a system of reasoning, which allows you to say that you have a nose? Lets not, or you will end up looking silly and having to hide me, just as you claim you have with anyone who doesnt agree with you. That was already disrespectful, but I just notice that you said something and you are unable to back it up with arguments. That does look silly. Bye (hidden).

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/5/2011 9:43:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Thanks, putting everything nice and concisely certainly helped me. Could you explain this: "4. With Occam's Razor, we conclude that the scenarios where 2+2 are not 4 are not real (do not occur)." Because I'm also under the impression that Occam's razor doesn't quite work like that. A4 1. Being concise leads to inexactitude. 2. Let us define Occam's Razor as "between two possible explanations of the same set of facts, we will consider true then one, which includes less new elements, until we are proven otherwise". This is still quite inexact, but better as just saying "Occam's Razor". 3. Let us consider the scenario "2+2=4 is actually true". 4. Let us consider the scenario "We live in a Matrix-like universe, and the creatures running the simulation watch our minds and perceptions, so that every time we think about it and make experiements, we come up with 2+2=4 even when it is actually not 4". 5(3,4). Both (3) and (4) explain why we come up with 4 every time we try to calculate how much is 2+2. 6(3,4). (3) introduces less new elements. 7(2,5,6). Using Occam's Razor, we consider true (3) and not (4). 8. Any scenario I come up with, which implies that 2+2 are not 4, is similar to 4 in that, it introduces more elements as (3). 9(2,8). Using Occam's Razor we conclude that the scenarios where (3) is false are not real (do not occur). 10(3,9). Using Occam's Razor we conclude that the scenarios where 2+2 is not 5 are not real (do not occur). QED

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875