RE: Trying

RE: Trying (Full Version)

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

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 2:32:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 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). Can anyone not already hidden re-post this for me please. Spanish, you made the following remark on post 278 "4. There is only one rational way to affirm that Unoser does not exist: Occam's Razor." Now, as you can see YOU have decided that the only way we can be rational is too use Occams Razor, that in itself makes all your arguments invalid. You are asking questions, setting narrow bands of possible replies, and then "hidden" anyone who calls you on it. What is the Spanish for infantile ?

Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 2:38:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 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). Can anyone not already hidden re-post this for me please. Spanish, you made the following remark on post 278 "4. There is only one rational way to affirm that Unoser does not exist: Occam's Razor." Now, as you can see YOU have decided that the only way we can be rational is too use Occams Razor, that in itself makes all your arguments invalid. You are asking questions, setting narrow bands of possible replies, and then "hidden" anyone who calls you on it. What is the Spanish for infantile ?

Politesub53 -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 2:39:53 AM)
Thanks Lucy.........

Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 2:40:18 AM)
my pleasure:)

Kirata -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 3:04:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 What is the Spanish for infantile ? Will this do? ¡no seas niño! K.

vincentML -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 9:02:05 AM)
Astonishing how many posters are playing his game while they complain. Just sayin.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 8:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Astonishing how many posters are playing his game while they complain. Just sayin. +1

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 8:36:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Can anyone not already hidden re-post this for me please. Spanish, you made the following remark on post 278 "4. There is only one rational way to affirm that Unoser does not exist: Occam's Razor." Now, as you can see YOU have decided that the only way we can be rational is too use Occams Razor, that in itself makes all your arguments invalid. You are asking questions, setting narrow bands of possible replies, and then "hidden" anyone who calls you on it. What is the Spanish for infantile ? Infantil, what you are being right now. 1. I am no longer playing the game, so I don't know which rules do you mention. The game is played in the game thread. This is not the game thread. You do not even notice in which thread you write? 2. You said that ALL was invalid, but then you were completely unable to show how and why the FIRST was invalid (as I asked) and you have to go to (4). This prooves that you were using just cheap rethoric and yes, childish. Actually, I guess that you realise that you have to agree with 1-3 and that you realise that you exaggerated in any case, but you are unable to recognise it because of childish vanity. 3. If somebody shows me an alternative rule to affirm that Unoser (and similar situations) does not exists, stupendous. As for now, nobody has done, and therefore, my argument stays as valid. 4. I hide people who disrespect me, not people who call for anything. I have discussed for weeks with Zone until I hid him, and I hid him only when he started disrespecting. Therefore, your diffamation is not only off-topic, it is also ridiculous. Lucy, if you do this again, I will hide you too. Not for bad, but I hide people so that I do not have to see stupid messages, and if you then disturb this purpose I will have no other choice. If you want to discuss with me or you agree with something somebody says and you want to know my answer, just use the argument yourself and speak with your own voice. And I will attend, as long as you remain respectful. Best regards, dear.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/6/2011 8:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 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 the 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 4 - are not real (do not occur). QED Typos corrected, sorry, GotSteel.

GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 4:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster A4 2. Let us define Occam's Razor as "between two possible explanations of the same set of facts, we will consider true the one, which includes less new elements, until we are proven otherwise". This is still quite inexact, but better as just saying "Occam's Razor". Well, I think at least in part the problem that people have been expressing is that you're using language like "consider true" "conclude...is false" "until...proven otherwise". For example if we compare solipsism to the model where reality is real. Solipsism requires one brain, reality requires a huge number of brains and a whole lot of other stuff. So if we simply conclude until proven otherwise that the simpler theory is true and the more complex one false we would end up in a situation where we considered solipsism true and reality false until someone proved to us that solipsism was false.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/7/2011 6:32:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel 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. Well, true, I suppose I would normally ask an atheist what he/she means by "god" in such a statement. Perhaps I viewed the statement as too pre-emptive in the sense that it seems to discount any and all possible definitions of "god" when one says "there is no god." But in my opinion, that's all the more reason to be more clear. quote: 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? In the sense that they're reacting against organized religion, I do get it. That's pretty much what I had figured from the beginning, but it's also for that same reason that I questioned the phraseology. But that's also why it's more of a political statement, not something derived from "pure logic," as Spanish was trying to demonstrate. It's not a statement based on science or logic; it's just political rhetoric. Wouldn't you agree?

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/7/2011 8:19:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Well, true, I suppose I would normally ask an atheist what he/she means by "god" in such a statement. Perhaps I viewed the statement as too pre-emptive in the sense that it seems to discount any and all possible definitions of "god" when one says "there is no god." But in my opinion, that's all the more reason to be more clear. Well I do generally take pains to define the terms in use before I make a statement like that and I still get heckled by some agnostics. Like I said if somebody is trying to misunderstand hard enough they will find a way to manage. Thing is I don't think someone should need to put a dozen disclaimers and caveats before the statement there is no God. We certainly don't need to when it comes to faeries unicorns or Santa Claus. Sure one can come up with uncommon alternate definitions for Santa but we get that people are generally talking about the really really common definition and will tell us through the context if they are not. So the question is why doesn't the same thing happen with God? Were you genuinely under the misconception that Spanish was claiming that the laws of physics didn't exist when he said there is no God? If not why would you even bring that up? I can certainly understand why some theists go for obscurantism instead of trying to defend the belief that they actually hold. But why do some agnostics head in that same direction?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 11:24:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster A4 2. Let us define Occam's Razor as "between two possible explanations of the same set of facts, we will consider true the one, which includes less new elements, until we are proven otherwise". This is still quite inexact, but better as just saying "Occam's Razor". Well, I think at least in part the problem that people have been expressing is that you're using language like "consider true" "conclude...is false" "until...proven otherwise". For example if we compare solipsism to the model where reality is real. Solipsism requires one brain, reality requires a huge number of brains and a whole lot of other stuff. So if we simply conclude until proven otherwise that the simpler theory is true and the more complex one false we would end up in a situation where we considered solipsism true and reality false until someone proved to us that solipsism was false. I do not understand the problem with "consider true", "conclude... is false" or "until proven otherwise". They are normal, usual expressions in epistemology, or at least, translations into English from common expressions in Spanish-formulated epistemology ("consideremos cierto que", "se concluye que es falso", "hasta que se demuestre lo contrario"). Solipism... well, that's the reason why I said "it is till quite inexact". You will find situations where the definition I gave of the Occam's Razor is not enough. If I have to formulate a full, complete explanation, then we have to go deep into information theory (what is to "add an object"? are all objects equal? what is an object? what is an explanation? how can two explanations be compared? what is a fact?) and then make a formulation which would probably occupy some pages. The formulation alone, besides the previous definitions. But I think that solipism is not enough to challenge my summary. Please consider again the part where I say "explain the same set of facts". Solipism alone does not explain *why I perceive what I perceive. So, solipism alone and the existence of the objective universe as revealed by science and reason, are not two possible explanations of the same set of facts: The perceptions. I really would prefer not to go deeper into Occam's Razor. My formulation is more than enough for our concrete case. I would prefer not to enter in measures of information, efficiency, size of an information hole, etc. Maybe we can go with the addendum "explain as much as possible with as few as possible" and agree that Solipism alone does not explain a s*t ? Without deepening what is exactly "explanation"? A bit like you say to Zonie, why make it complicated if the simple version and common sense are enough.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/7/2011 11:37:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 In the sense that they're reacting against organized religion, I do get it. That's pretty much what I had figured from the beginning, but it's also for that same reason that I questioned the phraseology. It's not about organized religion, or at least it's not just about organized religion. Belief in a celestial Santa doesn't become more reasonable simply because it's disorganized. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But that's also why it's more of a political statement, not something derived from "pure logic," as Spanish was trying to demonstrate. It's not a statement based on science or logic; it's just political rhetoric. Wouldn't you agree? Well there's clearly a political motivation for atheists to come out of the closet and express their positions. If there wasn't a strong christian nationalism movement I suspect that you'd hear about as much from atheists as you do from aunicornists. I'm also still not quite sure about all of what Spanish was trying to demonstrate though I do agree with him that statements about God get treated in a special way. That said no I don't agree with you. In the same sense that Santa is a job description, that once you determine that the presents you're receiving are actually coming from your Grandma you can refute the Santa claim and say that there is no Santa. In that same sense we can look at the theistic claim of God, not some metaphorical claim of God (hence the term a-theists not a-metaphorists) and test to see if this sort of thing is actually happening: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 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.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/7/2011 5:10:35 PM)
Oh good grief, not the Santa theme again... quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel once you determine that the presents you're receiving are actually coming from your Grandma you can refute the Santa claim and say that there is no Santa. All you have proved is that Santa Claus is not a physically real fat man who wears a red suit and slips into people's houses with a sack full of presents on Christmas Eve (grandma did it). So if you are saying, "there is no God," in the same sense as you are saying, "there is no Santa Claus," then all you are saying is that God is not a physical person. Congratulations. Everyone who thought otherwise may now be officially informed of their error. However, if you think you have refuted the existence of the good cheer and giving that Santa Claus represents, you really need to talk to someone about that. Seriously. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel In that same sense we can look at the theistic claim of God, not some metaphorical claim of God (hence the term a-theists not a-metaphorists) and test to see if this sort of thing is actually happening In that same sense, the only thing that can be tested is selected claims about God, not the theistic claim "of" God, i.e., the existence of the supreme reality that the term "God" represents. Additionally, unless you have changed your methods, please be reminded that lifting selected claims out of context and interpreting them literally remains the favorite tactic of Fundamentalist whackos everywhere, and produces the same results when you use it: Garbage in, garbage out. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 6:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Lucy, if you do this again, I will hide you too. Not for bad, but I hide people so that I do not have to see stupid messages, and if you then disturb this purpose I will have no other choice. If you want to discuss with me or you agree with something somebody says and you want to know my answer, just use the argument yourself and speak with your own voice. And I will attend, as long as you remain respectful. Best regards, dear. Im sorry did I give you the slightest inkling that I care what you find appropriate? you do not tell me how or what to post EVER .........do you understand? And leave off the patronizing. It makes you look like you have a LARGE self esteem issue.

tazzygirl -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 6:29:26 PM)
Pst.. Lucy... let the swelled heads talk. [;)]

Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 6:30:57 PM)
LOL I just found this, I could care less what he thinks, I just wanted to make sure he didnt think I took his condescension lightly. Arrogant AH

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/7/2011 7:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Congratulations. Everyone who thought otherwise may now be officially informed of their error. However, if you think you have refuted the existence of the good cheer and giving that Santa Claus represents, you really need to talk to someone about that. Seriously. Who would for a moment think that I was claiming that good cheer and giving didn't exist? Seriously, what kind of complete idiocy would it take to so fundamentally misinterpret every term in my sentence. I could almost get how you might be momentary confused that I was refuting poetic language that stood for secular completely natural things if I referred to myself as an a-metaphorist. But I'm an a-theist, I come fucking labeled. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata In that same sense, the only thing that can be tested is selected claims about God, not the theistic claim "of" God, i.e., the existence of the supreme reality that the term "God" represents. "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[2][3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Additionally, unless you have changed your methods, please be reminded that lifting selected claims out of context and interpreting them literally remains the favorite tactic of Fundamentalist whackos everywhere, and produces the same results when you use it: Garbage in, garbage out. You have to interpret them so figuratively that there's nothing theistic left in order to claim that they are true. Which is fine, I'll certain acknowledge that God exists as a fictional character or as a metaphor for the laws of physics but the sort of existence is a very different use of the term than the one theists and atheists are using. The kind of truth in the Bible that I've seen you finally claim when pinned down to it is in no way contrary with or even addresses the atheist statement that there is no God.

GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 8:44:51 PM)
I get that you're giving me the short version of things I'm not faulting you on that. Thing is solipsism does explain how you're perceiving what you perceive by claiming that it's a dream or hallucination created by your subconscious. Now if you just consider Occam's Razor to be a general guideline designed to steer scientists away from needlessly overcomplicated theories, then it's no big deal. All the evidence that we have leads us toward the conclusion that reality is real and none of it leads us toward the conclusion that reality is not real so we'll go with reality being real. If on the other hand you consider Occam's Razor some sort of law that proves the simpler theory true so strongly that it has to be proven false before you can reject it then you're stuck considering solipsism true until you can prove that it's false. And seeing as it's the ultimate conspiracy theory and can't be proven false, well....you're fucked.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875