Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
our memories, which are presumed to be permanently recorded in the brainThat, my friend, is known fact. No presumption.
Have you ever forgotten anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Not necessarily.All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.Do you want to read Clausius' first law of thermodynamics, which is accepted science, or maintain your jaded opinion? Try a little research.
Are you going to continuously appeal-to-authority or are you going to make an appeal to LOGOS?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...that does not result in a correct belief that the center is, therefore, not extant.
I never claimed "there is no center".
NOBODY is making that claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It doesn't it requires justification. If someone is implying that a mind exists which created the universe that is an assertion and requires evidence to assert.
A "mind" is not (necessarily) required in order to create a universe. For example, does "the big bang" imply a "mind"? It could simply be an event, like the creation of a rainstorm.
All-knowing? Now the definition of knowledge is a long and arduous conversation that still isn't philosophically very stable, but we know at a bare minimum that this thing has to be able to store knowledge, therefore it is at least a supercomputer which can process all knowledge, however using Occam's Razor, that is another assumption, and therefore should be less preferred than the mind sort. Either way it isn't justified.
Omniscient simply means "contains all knowledge" and in its simplest terms, knowledge is data.
All physical objects are necessarily data stores.
You, for example, are a record of the genetic and historical events that led you to participate in this conversation.
Your actions are evidence of a very long chain of cause-and-effect.
The cosmos (or super-cosmos) contains all data, and as such would seem to qualify as technically Omniscient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, CreatorAll of these imply a mind, an agent, especially the creator bit. So no, it is not applicable, as a mind is not demonstrated.
I don't see any "mind" buried in the mix.
And even if there were a "mind" added explicitly, it would make absolutely no difference to any of the perfectly logical statements and conclusions.
Please explain why you think a "mind" in any way "complicates" an otherwise O3C god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That1User
Science is prone to bias/subjectivity, it's not completely objective but it's close
Ideal or nearly ideal data collection can produce a "less-biased" data-set.
HOWevER, all data is SAMPLE-BIASED.
And since the definition of "objective" explicitly includes the qualifier "not-biased", "pure-objectivity" is incompatible with human minds.
FURTHERMORE,
Even iff we magically produced "objective" data, the CONCLUSIONS drawn from that data would not and could not ever be considered "objective conclusions".
Per Hume's Guillotine (you can never logically bridge the gap between an "IS" and an "OUGHT").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That1User
I think morality is disputable
The definition of morality requires a code of behavior based on PRINCIPLES.
The definition of PRINCIPLES requires a set of rules based on TRUTH.
The definition of TRUTH requires accordance with FACT.
And FACT must be indisputable.
Therefore, morality must necessarily be indisputable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That1User
Depends what you mean by incoherent, free will doesn't make sense as an action or a concept to believe in?
Logically incoherent. The only way to violate cause-and-effect is by pure randomness (and a random event is incompatible with the concept of a "willed" event).
I don't believe in free will but I see why it's believed in
Free-will is properly described as an emotion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Spinoza's god doesn't apply. Ever. Its a philosophically dry point that seeks to relabel something that doesn't need a relabel and is dishonest at the very best.
It's a perfect TAUTOLOGY.
It's rigorously defined.
And it matches the commonly understood definition of "god" (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Creator, O3C).
On what point exactly does it "fail"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I never gave anything relative to me. It was left open to whoever applies words in the manner they do.
(IFF) Atheist is defined as "NOT a theist" (THEN) someone who is "NOT a theist" may or not be "religious" (it would seem to make them less likely to be "religious" but it does not necessarily EXCLUDE them from being "spiritual" and or "pantheist" and or "animist" and or GNOSTIC)
(IFF) Black-power is defined as darker-skin-toned people having a strong preference for associating with and helping other darker-skin-toned-people and advocating for that opinion (THEN) that would seem to qualify as a "sincerely held belief" which is protected by the first amendment (just as long as those opinions and personal preferences don't include criminal activities)
(IFF) LGBTQ-power is defined as LGBTQ-people having a strong preference for associating with and helping other LGBTQ-people and advocating for that opinion (THEN) that would seem to qualify as a "sincerely held belief" which is protected by the first amendment (just as long as those opinions and personal preferences don't include criminal activities)
(IFF) Girl-power is defined as self-identifying-female-people having a strong preference for associating with and helping other self-identifying-female-people and advocating for that opinion (THEN) that would seem to qualify as a "sincerely held belief" which is protected by the first amendment (just as long as those opinions and personal preferences don't include criminal activities)
(IFF) White-power is defined as lighter-skin-toned people having a strong preference for associating with and helping other lighter-skin-toned-people and advocating for that opinion (THEN) that would seem to qualify as a "sincerely held belief" which is protected by the first amendment (just as long as those opinions and personal preferences don't include criminal activities)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for commercial energy production.
EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) [03]
EROEI 106:1 - Nuclear
EROEI 51:1 - Wind
EROEI 50:1 - Hydroelectric
EROEI 31:1 - Coal
EROEI 28:1 - Natural Gas
EROEI 21:1 - Parabolic Solar
EROEI 7:1 - Photovoltaic
EROEI 3.5:1 - Biogas
EROEI 1:1 - Ethanol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That1User
- Does the real world need superheroes? (No, we need more heroes)
The very concept of "hero" is a toxic myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
The United States should use private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.
And we all know how great that worked out for the Romans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That1User
I'm perfectly happy to attack any of the following resolutions,
Free will is an incoherent concept.
Morality is indisputable.
Science is not objective.
We can give it a go on the forums or in the debate section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
If everything is not true then you are not true so if you know that the true God is true then everything will be true.
Do you think that perhaps it might be conceivable that SOME things might be truly TRUE and SOME things might be truly FALSE?
I mean, if you believed that everything was necessarily 100% true, wouldn't that mean that lies are impossible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
True and God do not belong in a sentence together unless the sentence is pointing out that god isn't true.
Ok, ok, let's not get ahead of ourselves...
Perhaps you've heard of Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
I think you dont understand because I didnt say god is true because god is true what i said was that the true god is true so that means it is the truth. So the true god is is different from just true and the truth is different so when you put them together they are not circular. Because true god is true = truth not god is true = god is true.
Which "god" are you talking about?
What's your personally preferred definition of "god"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
-white power is not wrong- Atheist are religiousThese are true statements I specifically said, alluded to .
Perhaps you might make your definitions of "white-power" and "wrong" and "atheist" and "religious" explicit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
no. I'm just noting why his debates have no sources and he skips the first round.
I'm not sure why a specific name needs to be attached to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem with only asking questions is that not only does it not wholly rebuke your opponent's claims, but you never demonstrate yours.
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.
This is basic.
If you constantly attack (question) without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).
These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt.
You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is always presumed to be logically incoherent.
I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately.
This seems crystal clear to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I don't use sources for the majority of the debates other than common sense and universal law.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Does this qualify as a "call-out" thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
True. He instead noobsnipped and didn't really need voter manipulation, because he crushed people.
Whenever I see someone has Zero losses, I'm instantly suspicious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
He's just a troll man
Name calling = Ad Hominem Attack
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Are you going to deny your memories are facts?
Some memories are FACTS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Memory is a continually edited and fluid process...
It is impossible to recall a memory without changing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...which concludes, in one respect, that matter and energy have always existed,
Not necessarily.
All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.
...i.e. were not created, because matter and energy cannot be created, but merely transformed one to the other.
Not necessarily.
It's a bit of an astronomical leap to say "not created" (especially for "people of faith").
It would seem to be more accurate to say that any hypothetical "origin" (or non-origin) of this apparently indestructible energy is (currently) beyond our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...that does not result in a correct belief that the center is, therefore, not extant.
NOBODY is making that claim.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...as geocentric, and all the known evidence pointed to that condition as "fact." But it wasn't, was it? Heliocentrism became "fact." But that's not fa...
The specific location of the "objective" "center" of "the (knowable) cosmos" is NOT empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.
So, not exactly a FACT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What’s the point of a fact if it isn’t verified?
100% THIS.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Are you perhaps familiar with the Jensen (button) box? [**]
Simple reaction time correlates around .4 with general ability,[2] and there is some evidence that the slope of responding does also, so long as access to the stimulus is controlled.[4]
Also, for reference, g-factor (general ability), [**]
The g factor (short for "general factor") is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. It is a variable that summarizes the consistent finding of positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflected in the fact that individuals who excel at one type of cognitive task tend to excel in other kinds of cognitive tasks, too, while those who do poorly on one task tend to do so on all tasks, regardless of the tasks' contents.
Created:
Posted in:
A statement does not flicker back and forth between being factual and not being factual based on who is observing it. If you cannot understand the concept of a fact that you cannot personally verify, further conversing is fruitless. Please leave me alone. [**]
If "xbeliefs" are not logically-necessary, I'm not sure what "problem" they're trying to solve. The idea of "the world outside the mind" is a bit strange as an axiom, since we are necessarily trapped in the epistemological prison of the phaneron. In other words, anything strictly "incomprehensible" ("outside the mind") can safely be bundled up within the broad and nebulous category of the noumenon. Why would anyone bother themselves with an undetectable data set?
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTA (and emotionally meaningless).
An OPINION must be personal, private, experiential, unfalsifiable, qualitative, indistinguishable from GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Why do you think "free will" "should still be agreed to exist"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What you describe sounds something like, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QC7uMo1uPQ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nice, well, as long as we're making stuff up out of thin air, I'm leaning towards, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXOGgu0MuCs
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.
Is that sugar and chocolate ethically sourced, fair trade, and carbon neutral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh, strangely I was under the impression that the concept and associated attributes of "heaven" were supposed to be based on "the bible".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I'm perfectly happy to attack any of the following resolutions,
Free will is an incoherent concept.
Morality is indisputable.
Science is not objective.
We can give it a go on the forums or in the debate section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Presently, but life can't sustain itself that way on its own. There needs to be the reproduction of life to continue that way of sustaining. It isn't by feeding on dead things then that life sustains itself, but by reproduction.Please explain how "reproduction" doesn't require dead things.We do not reproduce so that we can kill, we kill so that we can reproduce. Even a just murder doesn't necessitate it becoming good, because life should always hope to beget life and not take it. I would say nature herself upholds this aspiration and avoidance. Most animals are known to not kill more than needed.
Most animals avoid killing their own kind (unless they are forced to compete for resources).
However, all creatures require death in order to live (except perhaps algae).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Or do we see the animal kingdom punishing for acts we would consider undoubtedly virtuous?A mother lion that tries to protect her cubs from a new pride leader will be attacked by the pride leader (de facto king).If one can call this a punishment, then it is a different type. The new pride leader isn't attacking to knock the mother's instinct to protect her offspring out of her. I doubt that's his plan, and if it is, he fails.
The point here is that "nature" punishes all kinds of "virtuous" behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
That “murder” is wrong is a circular proposition. “Murder” is a crime under legal systems; A particular type of homicide which a society has found to be wrong and thus outlawed. The question may as well be “Why is wrongful homicide wrong?” Well, you are going to have to be a bit more specific and get in to the particular types of homicides and defenses to get the answers I think you really want.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
But from the strong tree's perspective, it's the best advice they think they can give.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, there's the beauty of heaven. I think its our dreams come true, just about whatever they are.
Citation please.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Morality operateson a different standard than physical objects because it is anabstract concept. Morals are mindful things.What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.
Well, (IFF) they're not empirically demonstrable and they're not logically-necessary (THEN) then I'm not sure how they could possibly qualify as "facts" (aka moral facts).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Does not negate the objective fact you took another beings will from them.
Is murder the only way to "take another beings will from them"?
Are there other, perhaps slightly more subtle forms of coercion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
They don't, because they never made a choice. You took their choice, they didn't take yours. When you murder, only one party has made a choice.
Do you think that two people can BOTH attempt to murder each other at the same time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
...without justification or valid excuse,
I'm not sure what you mean by "justification" and or "valid excuse".
Created: