Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, the evolutionary trolley is dependant upon the scientist. And the scientist is dependant upon the social trolley..
Nobody ever asks who the heck built this trolley deathtrap in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why? You would be losing SO MUCH value to this world.
By what measure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
This makes stronger sense than the original.
CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If there are 6 people that are absolute failures with no achievements on one side of the track and there is one super scientist on the other, where do you control the trolley to go?
ALL TROLLEY "PROBLEMS" SOLVED FOREVER.
YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
ONLY HUMANS READ DICTIONARIES.I fail to see your point.
Do dogs care about dictionary definitions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What do you consider a good example of an "actual fact" (NOT SIMPLY A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT)?What do you consider a tautological statement and why?
1 + 1 = 2 is a tautological statement.
It is only "true" because it is defined as being "true".
For example (IFF) gromblegop = retelkimp (AND) swegmortok = gromblegop (THEN) retelkimp = swegmortok
The statement, "retelkimp = swegmortok" is "true" by definition (TAUTOLOGY).
In the same way that a gromblegop isn't an actual OBJECT, a "1" is not an actual OBJECT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Answering this simple question demonstrates your PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.I don’t know, now what?
What do you consider a good example of an "actual fact" (NOT SIMPLY A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How so? Your the one that’s limiting the definition to just humans when I asked you to support it you only reference one of many subsets.
ONLY HUMANS READ DICTIONARIES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Welcome to the left wing. :)
JOE BIDEN IS ACTUALLY TO THE RIGHT OF DONALD TRUMP ON THE POLITICAL COMPASS.
In modern politics "left" and "right" are swapping sides all the time.
It's a war over mere centimeters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You could have been a better God eh? Where have we heard that one before?
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
You do the math.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
God did not make evil. Evil is like "cold" or "shadow", they are not made, but are a function of what was made, respectively, heat and light.
Do you realize that "shadow" and "cold" also don't exist UNLESS THERE IS A PLACE FOR THEM TO EXIST.
Do you realize that "shadow" and "cold" also don't exist UNLESS THERE ARE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT CAUSE THEM TO MANIFEST.
You seem to be suggesting that evil is an UNINTENDED, UNAVOIDABLE consequence of good.
Too bad your OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT CREATOR couldn't predict "shadows".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The way you suggest would be unjust. THAT would have the consequence of making God unjust.
Coercing everyone on the planet with threats of eternal hellfire is the only moral solution.
Perhaps my neighbors should start following my special-book-of-rules because if they don't, I will burn down their homes while they're sleeping.
This is the only moral solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Isn't it kind of doltish to pick out only instances of "no" and then wonder why they are all no? Do I smell an agenda?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Now lets pretend that the TV in that room represents events, and every time you turn on that TV there begins a moving picture play of activity and things that you can observe taking place. And once you turn on that TV time begins to exist because events (movies) begin to unfold.
Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,
Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.
What they saw on their screens was their reality.
The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.
Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.
Only the game was real. Only the game was shared experience. Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta).
Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense. In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
A "succession" is only relative to time, that is, time passing which is measured by the scale of things that exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
God cannot contradict His nature, that does not mean however all of His actions or inactions are determined.
OMNISCIENCE + OMNIPOTENCE = PERFECT ACTION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sometimes man just thinks too hard about things that are intrinsically and intuitively easy to know.
Are you suggesting we should all stop thinking for ourselves and just listen to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
God's nature does not consist of one specific action
How many versions of earth did "YHWH" create?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
THEREFORE
(IFF) evil actions and events and human suffering exist (AND) an omnipotent and omniscient creator exists (THEN) evil actions and events and human suffering are caused by an omnipotent and omniscient creator
Absolutely hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You're the one cherry-picking from the definition.But that's fine.How so?
Choose any definition of FACT (and or OBJECTIVE) you wish.
YOU seem to believe that certain specific fragments of that definition are MORE important than other specific fragments.
But that's fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I said...An infant is an infant.....Nonetheless an infant will possess knowledge of experience relative to it's age and upbringing.....We input and store more data in our formative years, than we will ever do as an adult.
I agree.
However, an infant has no PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."Me answering this doesn’t answer how I view the definitions of both terms so I ask again what’s the point of this question?
Answering this simple question demonstrates your PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the fact that it happened is enough proof on its own
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?
"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Whatever "created" (produced) the human mind still requires a human mind for its identification and verification.Like I said before you can’t just pick and choose a subset of a definition and expect it to crossover, facts includes but is not limited to identification.
You're the one cherry-picking from the definition.
But that's fine.
An unverifiable "fact" is functionally indistinguishable from an OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Pardon me, but when was them changing over time ever the narrative?
Today.
The narrative is objective things don’t require a mind for its existence,
Objects are also a process. No object is eternal.
well whatever created the human mind didn’t need a mind for its existence
Whatever "created" (produced) the human mind still requires a human mind for its identification and verification.
therefore it’s objective and objective things are factual
Only ACTUAL objects (that are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary) can be proper FACTS.
and since that factual thing created a human mind it wasn’t dependent on a mind for its existence proving facts existed before humans.
Even (IFF) one supposes that unfalsifiable objects are "facts" (THEN) no human can make any statements or claims about such (supposed) objects unless those claims are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What do mammals, plants, and fish have to do with humans?
HUMAN = MAMMAL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You can’t apply whatever process goes into the creation of dogs and apply it to humans, we’re a completely different species dude.
Mammals, plants, and even fish change over time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
unless you explain how they’re relevant
Look, I'm just following your lead here.
You asked me, "Let me ask you a question the person or thing that created the human mind if it’s existence isn’t factual then what is it [?]"
Did I bristle and demand you explain why you're asking?
I'm doing my level and sincere best to accommodate your steering of the conversation.
If you'd like to "reset" or "reframe" the discussion (or abandon it altogether) please feel free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The creation of the first dog is just as unknown to you as humans so what does that prove?
Organic selection based on aggressiveness leads to physiological changes.
A fox becomes a dog through a process (along with some ONTOLOGY).
The dog's parents were foxes and their parents were foxes and their parents were foxes.
At what point does it magically become a dog?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Depends entirely on the judge and/or jury. What leads one peraon to believe something is different than what leads another to believe the same thing, or even something different.
I guess judges and jurors must have special mind-reading powers bestowed upon them by "YHWH".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Manslaughter and murder are considered different crimes.
But the only difference is "intent".
How do you determine what I was thinking at the time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
An infant is an infant...Still requires an internal data and systems management device though.
Sure, but absolutely worthless when determining FACT from OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "do good" (THEN) GOD must "do good"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Ehhh somewhat accurate. I'm pretty critical of the government, but the rest seems accurate.
Try the POLITICAL COMPASS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
True. Still, it could be argued that the faction-building that it requires from politicians is a positive thing as it gets minorities heard.
And it has the added benefit of making sure they almost never get the 5% required to be recognized as their own party.
along with 11% of the public.
along with 16% of the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the reason there is still evil is because god is being "just" about his clean up efforts,
Perhaps "global warming" is like the new version of Noah's Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah.
Kill all the evil people.
It doesn't seem to care about "freewill" at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Yeah, it's interesting how many factions end up under the same umbrella under this two party system. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on who you ask
OH, IT'S FUCKING FANTASTIC FOR THE PEOPLE COLLECTING "POLITICAL DONATIONS".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sorry Festus. Everytime I pin you down with questions you can't (or won't) answer, you run away to other questions. I'm not here for an interrogation. Answer my questions or your questions get dumped.
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What was the point of sending me those videos?
I'm comparing FIRST DOG to FIRST HUMAN.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Here's a link to a larger graphic with some reference points, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I received the same output as yourself.
I found the phrasing of each of the questions to be highly misleading.
In contrast, I found the phrasing of the questions in the POLITICAL COMPASS to be slightly less misleading.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD must "do nothing"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And all societies have a religious element, to a greater or lesser degree
9 of the top 10 most religious countries are in the Middle East. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Each individual has a survival instinct that prompts them to self value.True.....But the same instinct also allows them to under value others.
And yet, at the same time there is a sort of childish (self-serving) logic to the idea of "everybody play nice" (nobody kill anybody).
It's reasonable to believe, "the best way to protect myself from being killed is to be part of a society that doesn't believe in killing anybody for any reason".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not to mention that it was the human species that was responsible for the breeding of the foxes
I hope we can agree that DOGS existed before 1959.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Have fun dodging simple YES or NO questions.
Created: