Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Why do we die?
Because all of our organs have a timestamp.
Isn't it to enable Evolution?
You believe in that? I do not pedal consensus-based narratives by the "science-community."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
[104] Given that your support for an example case, i.e. claiming that God does not exist is irrational, was ambiguous
No, it wasn't.
I assumed your support was an application of the more general principle that claiming Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational. The reason is that you appeared to attempt to support the general case i.s.o. the example case.
And your assumption was correct, but it doesn't apply to the "example case" because you included the premise "X is impossible." My dispute isn't whether I support the claim Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational as long the definitions I provided are being used; my dispute has been with your failure, unwillingness, or incapacity to provide description to the terms "impossible" and "exist."
You have yet to honour your burden to prove the example case.
I do not have to honor the burden of an argument I did not make. The example case while attempting to extrapolate my reasoning is still presented through your argument.
[105] Where have I stated that ?
Where have you stated what? If you're referring to my statement you highlighted with "104," then here is where you stated it:
Athias #460[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,Amoranemix #444Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.
[106] I already gave a description of existence in post 445. More than one may apply as we are discussing more than one subtopic.
False. I posted Post #445.
Possibility is a requirement for existence.
Demonstrate this. (Hint: you would have to provide a description to "Possibility.")
'X is possible' means 'It is possible for X to be true or to exist.'
Same as directly above.
[107] You are mistaken again. A premise is not an argument and an argument is not a premise.
No, I am not. I'm not arguing that a premise is an argument. I'm implicitly stating that a premise is an essential part of an argument, i.e. when a premise changes, the argument changes. Thus, your changing the premise changes the argument from mine to yours.
[108] No. I never made that argument.
Explicitly stating that argument is not required.
You still have to prove that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist, but I think we are already debating that elsewhere.
I've already done it.
[a] I don't know. How much disbelief I hold depends on what is meant with impossible. Even with lax impossibility I still disbelieve it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist.
Yes, it depends on what is meant with impossible. So what do you mean by "impossible?"
The overlap consists of those people who fall into both categories, namely not questioning their own beliefs and always being certain of themselves.
And this was intended to inform Bertrand Russell's statement about wisdom, correct? But you haven't really demonstrated how this applies.
[91] What definition is that ? If you wanted clarity you would have repeated that definition i.s.o. having me and anyone following along looking it up.
I'm interested in clarity; I'm just not interested in repeating myself frequently. Quote me in sequence and we can easily resolve this issue.
post 440 :exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.real: true or actual.material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.What does spiritual existence of God mean ? Does that mean that God exists in people's minds ?
To exemplify one's being through spiritual aspects, I suppose. As for whether God exists in people's minds, well, everything one experiences exists in one's mind.
I suspect that when people claiming God doesn't exist, they are referring to physical nonexistence.
Do you "suspect" or is this what you're arguing? I'm very well aware that atheists are maintain a materialist position. Of course, the irony in this is that their materialism is substantiated by the immaterial.
Everything: all things that existNothing: all things that do not existHence, if square circles dont' exist, then they are part of Nothing.
Square Circles by definition are illogical. That however does not speak to their "existence." You would have to demonstrate how logic and existence are necessary bi-conditions.
93] We are not discussing the use of 'God does not exist' as a presupposition.
We're not; we're speaking directly to a claimant with respect to his/her claim, which is necessary for any claim.
[94] Assuming the author is being honest, (s)he may not know and merely believe.
What is the difference between "believing" God does not exist, and "knowing" God does not exist?
And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.[95] Please demonstrate that.
Because the claim itself necessarily demonstrates knowledge; claims do not create themselves; claims reflect what the claimant knows or presumes to know or what is to be known (presumably by everyone.)
Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."[96][96] Please explain how that is supposed to follow.
It follows from what I stated in "[95.]"
[97] Not yet.
I have. Whether it has satisfied your metrics, only you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Pediatric cancer?
Kids aren't supposed to get cancer? We all die at some point, right? The value placed on long lives if we're subjecting it to analysis with respect to the Bible, for example, is an earthly attachment which falls short in juxtaposition to the after life. I know the attempt is to demonstrate incompetence, but if one believes in God, and everything that is stated in the Bible, then why would a child's death be an example of incompetence, especially as it concerns non-violent circumstances?
" I cannot imagine a God..."
It already starts off with an appeal to incredulity.
"...who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty."
Awfully detailed for something one "cannot imagine."
"Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.“ — Albert Einstein
Egotism? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Wasn't he dismissing the entire concept because "[he] cannot imagine [it]?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of god ?
A spiritual being at the very least. I don't take issue with the modification of this being as "supreme."
if your food looks good, but smells like rotten roadkill, you might not want to eat it
The Duriant Fruit may change your mind.
Created:
Posted in:
My personal knowledge has no bearing on the validity of my points,
Your personal knowledge has bearing on your capacity to exhibit understanding of the subject matter.
and your claim about ignorance on my part is an ad honimen.
No, it isn't. I'm very much in a position to qualify your understanding of the subject. And note that I addressed a number of your points individually before I rendered my conclusion that you have little to no understanding of the subject.
I do in fact understand economics and the philosophy and practise of capitalism.
You have yet to exhibit this.
Do you expect me to give a lecture on the basics? I assume you are knowledgeable and don't need an introduction.
No, I expect you to extend conclusions that are consistent with the practice and "philosophy" of Capitalism.
A single principle can suffice: Money should not be aquired through immoral means. You cannot kill for money, commit robbery or sell poisenous food in your restaurant, not even use slaves in your factory. This principle is already a foundational part of our legal system, so I don't see how you would contest it. We are civil people and not barbarians. When we recognize that all humans are created equally and endowned with inalienable rights, the economy must obey a moral code.
And what does this have to do with the practice and philosophy of Capitalism?
Do you prefer feudalism? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Tribalism? My oppinion is we stick with democracy untill we find a better system.
I prefer anarchy.
Businesses spend money on advertisement.
Redundant.
That is money not spent improving the service or the conditions/salary of workers.
No, but it is money spent exposing a target base to a good and/or service. A good/service cannot be consumed if one doesn't know about it. And reciprocally, a business cannot sell a good and/or service if consumers are not consuming--meaning no money for "improved" worker conditions and salaries.
This serves nobody.
Incorrect.
A cental pilar of stakeholder capitalism is that businesses and the people working in them are not just means to an end, but an end in themselves.
First, why are you qualifying Capitalism with the modifier, "stakeholder?" Second, how is "stakeholder" Capitalism different from just plain old Capitalism?
The conditions and sallaries of workers is important in an of themselves.
So a mom and pop shop? Those are nice, I suppose. But again, what does this have to do with Capitalism?
Disagreeing is to dehumanize the majority of people on earth, saying their lives don't matter.
Well then, I disagree.
My point excactly. The economy works under the assumption that simply making money is a virtue in and of itself. A road or fire department isn't valueable or productive, but apparently drug empires are, and so is scamming and robbery. How does this view make sense in a wider context? Whats valuable and whats desireable is not the same, often quite the contrary. We recognize this with economic crime, but apparently use a double standard when it comes to business.
If a free market consists of a composite of individual values from individuals who participate, then a drug empire would thrive over, for example, a fire department, if said individuals value drugs over fire department services. When you implicate that road and fire department services should be valuable or more valuable than drugs, scamming, etc., of whose value are you speaking: yours or everyone else's?
The thing is, contemporary capitalism is fine-tuned for exploitation.
Once again, you've qualified Capitalism with a modifier. So, once again, how is "contemporary" Capitalism different from just plain old Capitalism?
Companies generally cannot afford to care about human workers because that would render them at a disadvantage. The past proves this point.
What past?
Slavery is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unfair treatment of workers. Even you must agree that capitalism incentivices slavery because not having to pay a sallary and practically owning the workers puts you at a competetive advantage.
Not only do I not agree, but also this point is excessively ignorant. Private individuals are not present in slavery because the law sanctions the ownership of another person. Slavery has never been, nor is it now Capitalistic. It's communistic. BECAUSE IT WAS HELD TOGETHER BY LAW.
Slavery.
Ignorant point.
Software problem which doesn't explicitly delineate the fault or the benefit of the owners.
The entire legal and illegal tobaco and drug industry.
Give an exemplar.
Evidence that the owner was involved?
You need not look far to see that the human ego that makes communism impossible also causes immense harm in our "free" economy.
You presume that this is a "free" economy. The United States Economy has for over a hundred years been a quasi-communist/socialist Economy.
To assert that a system which only rewards profitt never leads to tragedy is to not understand economics.
Once again, you've exhibited little to no understanding of Economics, because Economics doesn't deal with or analyze "tragedy."
Nope, because of logic. Constant abuse of the masses only benefits the few powerfull enough to evade said problems and often profit from the suffering. An economy is good for the country if it benefits the people living in the country. Capitalism is better than feudalism and communism but still can be improved.
And what does this have to do with, again, the practice and "philosophy" of Capitalism?
Look, I get that you don't trust the narrative, but the effects are not limited to future catastrophy.
Don't presume to know what I do or don't trust.
Harvard research suggests 8 million deaths in 2018 due to pollution by burning of fossil fuel. Pollution is like forcing people, and the gobe, to smoke sigarettes -- the resulting death and misery is tangible and well established. The carbon tax would incentive clean non-toxic energy production, all without central planning by the government. This is a moral imperrative.
Please argue or make reference to material which substantiates causation.
Are you saying disincentivicing unnecesary evil in a capitalistic economy makes it socialist?
No, I'm saying the presumption that "unnecessary evil" is a byproduct of Capitalistic practices and "philosophy" is a Socialist talking point.
You claim I am ignorant of economics and yet you don't seem to understand what capitalism means.
Seem is not an argument.
Capitalism means private ownership and economic freedom.
Yes.
That is, the government doesn't own everything and doesn't tell you which products to buy or which company to work for.
No. It means that the government doesn't regulate the production and dissemination of goods and services by private individuals.
The united states is by definition capitalist.
Not even remotely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, it shows that if there was a God, he was an incompetent drunk before he died.
What would be an example of God's incompetence and/or inebriation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why would you ever presume that?
Just a suspicion based on your commentary.
I am a Liberal- liberals invented free market capitalism.
As facetious as this may be, "liberals"--even the classical ones--didn't invent free market Capitalism. (#PhysiocracyRules!)
That's in the context of individual benefit. Please detail some of the economic benefits afforded to parents in the US. Yes, there are some tax benefits but those tax benefits don't compensate for the cost of raising smart and healthy kids. I'm looking for total monetary benefits of raising children vs. not raising children.
Before your preemptive cutting me off at the knees and challenging me to a "versus," let's first explore the nature of my contention. You stated, "At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising smart and healthy kids." This takes only into account the immediate short term--especially considering over the time which this argument should be considered, children cannot generate income or face high unemployment rates (a product of policy enforced by the liberals who you have claimed "invented" the free-market.) However, over the long term, this changes (of course, this is HIGHLY CONTINGENT on those who we're talking about--especially if we're considering individuals.) Case in point: my siblings and I (there are nine of us) combined generate incomes that far eclipses the combined incomes our parents (and they're both physicians.) Because of their investment, the children they've produced can pay them back ten-fold.
Traditionally, care-taking was assigned to women and women were expected to work without compensation.
Naturally. Who would pay them for rearing their children? Even more so presuming that her husband's income as of a result of their marriage was commutative? And even though fathers on average generate more income than mothers on average, women who bear prospects of having children, are still entering the labor force. Why do you think that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A good argument for Atheism:“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” -Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
Very uplifting. That's a good argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
We speak of economic value as a separate concept from moral value but in a moral society there would not be much separation between the two. If we agree that our first responsibility as nation, society, economy, generation, etc. is to raise the next generation of children and our second responsibility is to improve that generation's quality of life above our own generation and our third responsibility is to plan for the improvement of future generations then we should agree that what we value economically should reflect those moral responsibilities.
At face value, I would agree with this. However, I'm going to presume you're not speaking in favor of Capitalism.
At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising smart and healthy kids
That isn't true at all.
when that should be the most prioritized/rewarded activity in our society. It should be far more profitable to participate in those activities that build and improve society like parenthood, teaching, nursing and less profitable to participate in those activities that don't.
Why do you think this is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results.
Among other things, yes.
Profit only means redistribution of wealth. Even if you justify it as a result of fair market dynamics, its still just that, redistribution.
Not "redistribution"; just "distribution."
We have created a system where people compete to steer the cash flow towards their own pockets.
Comparative Advantage is fundamental in Economics. You do what you're best at, while minimizing the opportunity costs of everything else, in order to maximize your returns.
Any means necesary is NOT acceptable for achieving this goal.
Are you suggesting that a moral economy is necessary? Delineate the tenets and principles of this moral economy; substantiate them as well.
Lobbying is waste of money and politician's time
It's in fact not. Lobbying produces the ends favored by both the politician and his/her corporate cohort.
and it also undermines democracy.
Democracy is not worth defending.
Money spent on advertisements is money witheld from hard working people with dire economic needs.
Withheld? Please delineate the exclusive claim and/or entitlement working people with dire economic needs bear on money spent by advertisers.
The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers.
That is not what that means. Transition to financial services reflects an economy's tertiary sector. "Caring" about being a good business and/or serving customers depends on its management--regardless of the transition.
A company's value is NOT a function of its profit margins.
If we qualify value in the context of Economics, then yes it is.
Road building generates no profit
Incorrect.
but they are invaluable services.
The State certainly functions as so.
This highlights the problem with capitalism.
No, it doesn't. In order to highlight a problem with a system or framework, you first have to UNDERSTAND said system or framework; you've exhibited thus far no such understanding.
We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. The tobacco industry and their decades of lies is a brilliant example of the sort of economic activity that even proponents of capitalism must admit is unacceptable. Its possible to harm society and get rich of it.
There's a rather simple "solution" isn't there? Stop buying Tobacco-based products. But people won't, will they? So who's really responsible?
That is madness. Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society.
Once again, no real understanding of Capitalism.
We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners.
Provide an exemplar of Companies prioritizing just the owners an not their workers or customers.
Anything less is to legitimize exploitation in the name of profit. The country is made up of workers --- companies are harming the country if they take money from the employees and give it to the owners.
Because of Marx's labor theory of value?
Similarly, broad social harm caused by private industries must be beaten back. Companies must be punished if they harm society in the name of money. That is, put up a carbon prize so that no companies can doom the planet without paying for it.
You mean carbon emissions which ALLEGEDLY exacerbate "Global Warming"?
Capitalism and competition. These are such powerfull forces that it would be utterly foolish not to use them to solve the problems todays world face.
Except your vision for Capitalism is to achieve Socialist ends, thereby defeating the purpose of Capitalism.
Face it, the economy needs to change. If you believe in small government then all you have is the market, and we can't afford sustaining a financialized poison economy.
You're under the delusion that this economy is Capitalist. It's not. It's under the direction of quasi-communists exploiting the appeal of socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
think of a spongethrow that sponge into a riverthat flows into the oceanhow much information remains in that spongewhen it is old and crumbles to dust
I'd presume very little.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(iff) interlocutors cannot (explicitly) agree on definitions (then) they are not having a conversation
I--for the most part--agree.
yes, your eye is not your nose
The distinctions of which are determined by their primary functions, not their connection, correct? And those functions are independent of the other, yes? Though, I suppose one could argue olfaction can modulate visual perception.
what's the utility in a god that neither detects nor interacts with reality?
A "metaphysically objective" God? None.
the ONLY way a god can interact with humansis(iff)those humans are PIECES OF THAT GOD
Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
which proves my point
It's not that it proves your point; easy =/= not entertaining one's opponent's measures.
the "self" is one of the most obvious examplesthe "not-self" is another
Nice. But it's as you stated isn't it?: "two things that are truly 'independent' are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way." I suppose my question would be: can we render distinction without independence?
If not, what's the utility in a logical necessity that neither detects nor interacts with reality?
ap·o·phat·ic | \ ˌa-pə-ˈfa-tik \Definition of apophatic: of or relating to apophasis (see APOPHASIS sense 2) : involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not haveThe phaneron (Greek φανερός [phaneros] "visible, manifest"[1][2]) is the subject matter of phenomenology, or of what Charles Sanders Peirce later called phaneroscopy.[3] The term, which was introduced in 1905, is similar to the concept of the "phenomenon" in the way it meant "whatever is present at any time to the mind in any way".[4]
That's not what I meant to request. I'm aware of aphophasis and phaneron. How does your qualification of phaneron as aphophatic create an equalivalence to one's mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
we can only describe it as "extant" to the degree that it is LOGICALLY NECESSARYin other words, NOUMENON
What are some examples of logically necessary "extant" realities or objects in reality?
the apophatic phaneron = one's mind
Please explain.
my impression is that you are generally making an ontological argument for the "existence" of "god(s)"this is a relatively easy position to defendas long as you avoid commitment to a SPECIFIC god and or gods
Not really. Because my ontological argument doesn't focus on particular descriptions, or whether their capacities as described in books and/or mediums of mythos is consistent with physical law. My argument is that they simply "are." And this is defensible whether I'm making reference to a specific god, or all gods. As they say: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ah, I too once had a Black guy as a president. Can I has N word pass?
That's not what oromagi was stating. He has stated that his experiences with so-called "Black" teachers, "black" lovers, "black" friends, "black" bosses, "black" literature, so forth and so on, informs his cultivation of this perspective:
Good news. As a Liberal I oppose any restriction on any particular word. I don't know how we are supposed to seriously discuss ethnic slurs like nigger, their history in our language and how they are used to signal intentional offense without first being at liberty to type the word out. Minced oaths and X-word references invoke the original slur just as effectively as the word itself while also implying a kind of semantic magic, as if context is irrelevant and merely writing the word by itself has the power to offend. Well, that's just self-censorship and as often happens when ideas are censored, gives the target more semantic power than mere usage might ever invoke.
My point was that this point is valid on its own without the alleged "authority" his past experiences and interactions with so-called "black people" provide. Oromagi hasn't suggested a "pass" at all; only that censoring (e.g. Minced oaths and X-words) provides an offensive term more of an impact than its mere usage--as it ignores context, and its etymological applications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How so?
Your capacity to set criteria for what "she" should or shouldn't say based on the property on which she stands. That is, if she's on your property, you can create consequences based on that fact.
The First Amendment is a restriction on government interference, not personal interference.
Does it matter? What would the de facto difference be if you were a member of government?
Well, that's not your First Amendment right but I do call that correct behavior- your home, your rules, whether or not you actually own the house.
If one doesn't own one's house, then it's presumably the "[Bank's] home, [Bank's] rules..." Customarily, they don't concern themselves with what is said or isn't said inside one's home. But my initial point wasn't about "Free Speech," but "property rights."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.
You're late. zedvictor4 and I had already discussed this.
[96] You hide it well.
Hilarious.
[97] So are you.
Redundant.
[98] Are you looking for a way out ?
Out of this regressive and vacuous dynamic you've captained? Indeed. But I don't know you, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you have more to contribute.
[99] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Have I suggested either?
[100] The concept of straw man eludes you.
No, it doesn't.
You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.
I'm not arguing against your employment of the term, "seem," because I believe you've claimed "seem" is an argument; I'm arguing against your employment of the term, "seem" in argument--period.
What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?
There's a difference between stating, "I think," and "you seem." The former takes responsibility for your private gnosis, the latter does not.
[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.
I'll put an end to this nonsense right now:
Athias 421 :“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.- God is a person. Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.
- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.[b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.[b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.[b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.
It's here where you either got confused or misinterpreted what was going on. When I stated, "I did present an argument," I was not AT ALL referring to your proposal that I refute your affirmation. In fact, I responded with this:
If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead.Why would "I" make the case? Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency?[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?
I've had enough of this nonsense. Either explain your support, or I'm considering it a dropped point.
[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.
No, I didn't. That notion is a product of your own confusion. I extend my demand above.
Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?
If that's the case, then why did you initially state that your understanding of substantiation excluded providing someone else's opinion:
Athias 450 :Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?Amoranemix 459 :No.
?
When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god.
Define "real god."
They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.
Explain the relevance of this allusion. Do you support the claims of these skeptics? And if so, explain.
[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.
I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:
Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?
Do you object?
@font-face {
font-family: 'graphik-web';
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.eot');
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.woff') format('woff');
font-weight: 700;
font-style: normal;
font-stretch: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'graphik-web';
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.eot');
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.woff') format('woff');
font-weight: 300;
font-style: italic;
font-stretch: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'graphik-web';
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.eot');
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.woff') format('woff');
font-weight: 400;
font-style: normal;
font-stretch: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'graphik-web';
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.eot');
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.eot?#iefix')
format('embedded-opentype'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.woff2')
format('woff2'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.woff')
format('woff');
font-weight: 700;
font-style: italic;
font-stretch: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'graphik-web';
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.eot');
src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.woff') format('woff');
font-weight: 500;
font-style: normal;
font-stretch: normal;
}
[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?
I am in no position to "doubt" if I don't know how you've defined "perfect love" and "perfect justice." So once again: define "perfect love"; define "perfect justice."
[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.
Non sequitur. My exchange with Double_R was my exchange with Double_R. My exchange with you is my exchange with you. Double_R is irrelevant to my exchange with you. If you're going to make reference to Double_R's argument, and support it, then it's your responsibility to assume stewardship of that argument.
My own measure.
What measure is that?
[81] What does that mean, informing support ?
Provide information to your support, or Explain your support.
I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.
Haha, my lap is bruising from all this laughter. Are you done derailing?
[*] You can find in post 449 the objection I have born to the definition you have provided earlier. I don't bear any objections. Get on with it.I don't believe of any particular definition of exist that it applies in matters of ontology.
I did. If you didn't keep quoting me out of sequence, you could've seen it. I'll submit it here again:
P1 requires demonstration.Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual." (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist. If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist. And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known. Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."P1 demonstrated.
Objections?
['] Some thoughts, concepts and products of imagination are part of the universe. Others aren't.
Explain the division that separates the thoughts, concepts, and products of imagination that are part of the universe, and the others that aren't.
[104] Whatever else you have done is irrelevant. You have failed to demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises. If doing so requires another definition for existence, then stop stalling and provide one
I have demonstrated that my conclusion follows from the premises; I have provided definitions. So why don't you stop stalling, and read it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No. Your associate had her say and now she must deal with the consequences of her free speech.
You've now provided an exclusion to her free speech. Suppose, you had a sign in front of your house which bore the statement "No calling my spouse a bitch." That renders the speech of each person who enters your home subject to this exclusion less they face the consequences. You however could call your spouse a bitch because its your home. And that's my point: you should be able to say whatever you want as long as you're on your own property. If you're on someone else's property, then your speech is subject to their criteria (e.g. yelling "fire" in a movie theater.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No. The topic sentence of the paragraph is "I was taught this lesson by black people." followed by examples of the ways I rec'd that instruction. Your inferences are not warranted by the words I wrote.
I was slightly teasing. Post #5 had sufficient merit on its own without the caveat "I
was taught this lesson by black people"--as if so-called "black" people could grant you authority one way or another in spite of your extended interaction with said, so-called "black" people. That's what my question is poking fun at. (Forgive my grammatical error.) It's very reminiscent of "but, I have black friends..."
Well that would represent a significant curtailment of First Amendment rights for most Americans. Only 24% of Americans own any property and 75% of those are white people. If you can only say what you want on your own property that significantly amplifies the voice of the white and wealthy while diminishing the influence of non-wealthy non-white voices.
You invite an associate over to your home. That associate calls yours your spouse a bitch. You, in response, tell said associate to get his/her ass out of your home. Have you curtailed his/her First Amendment rights?
Disagree. As a poet I find queer far more pleasing to speak and rhyme than faggot
I don't disagree that the term, "queer" is easier to rhyme than the term "faggot." Just that especially in moments of anger and animus, the hard consonant phonemes--slurs like "faggot" provide--give relief in its euphony.
I assume nobody would prefer LGBT to queer on the grounds of euphonic advantage.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Thoth
Do you mean this literally (anyone should be able to say what they want while they are on their own property)
Yes, I mean it literally.
or metaphorically (people should only be able to use offensive terms for a group if they belong to that group)?
The qualification "offensive" is subject to the individual, and even then it's their responsibility--i.e. how they manage their response to said "offense."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sadly, raising wages doesn't restore consumer or investor confidence. Bare shelves mean whatever is left is unaffordable due to scarcity, regardless of how much you have. Maybe we can print money out of thin air, but we still have yet to figure out how to create goods out of thin air.
Well put. Just to add, the minimum wage not only penalizes low-skilled labor (i.e. makes it illegal to employ labor whose marginal productivity falls below the state-imposed price) but also, it adversely affects the productivity of the labor market, where the market as a whole loses money.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
True inflation is where everyone gets their wage increased...
Substantiate.
a reasonable minimum wage only increases inflation at the margin
How have you come to this conclusion?
but the poor people r benefited more proportionally than inflation increased
Elaborate on the comparative benefits and drawbacks an increase in minimum wage has with respect to increased inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
This is a debate site. Talking big is what we do.
Nice.
I was taught this lesson by black people. Most of my elementary school teachers were black. In high school, my principal was Bobby Seale's little sister. I went to a small city college where I studied black poetry and black literature. I was an apprentice baker to a black woman for two years. I live in the oldest largest black neighborhood to be found west of Chicago and east of LA. My little townhouse was owned by Black Panthers in the 60's and by Crips in the 80's and as a center of black politics many famous black people have walked down my street and shook the hands of the black people who lived in my house- MLK, Lena Horne, Sammy Davis, Jr., etc. My next door neighbor is a black poet. I've had black lovers and black friends all my life.I learned how to write and speak the word nigger from Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston and above all, from James Baldwin.
So you've paid your dues, and became an honorary so-called "Black" person?
I agree there should never be any racial restriction for the usage of any word. Much simpler to simply allow everybody to use every word.
I believe anyone should be able to say whatever they want as long as they own the property on which they say it.
...or when gay men like me use the slurs queer or faggot. I have long advocated for using queer as a preferable one syllable catch all instead of the tiresome LGBTQetc, in spite of Larry Kramer's objections.
Terms like Nigger, faggot, kyke, dyke, spic, dick, bitch, etc. roll off of the tongue so easily that they produce euphony, especially in charged moments. "Queer" does not have the same impact.
Disagree.
So do I.
Created:
Posted in:
Nigger means "black," literally. If one's going to take offense at being referred to as "a nigger," then one might as well get offended at being referred to as "Black"--or the liberal euphemism, "African American"--which I'm not entirely against. Because "Black," as I've continued to repeat in my discussions here, IS NOT A RACE. It's not a culture; it's not an ethnicity. It's a government designation which elides any distinction among Negroids and some Mongoloids and Australoids. I actually disagree with RationalMadman in his misunderstanding of the reason so-called "Black" people have embraced the innocuity of the term, Nigger--kind of a generalized accusation there, by the way. If one's going to indoctrinate a demographic into believing they're so-called "Black," then why chip away at their respective self-esteems by suggesting that the term, Nigger--which again means "Black"--is associated with shame or offense? The term, "Nigger"--more so it's latin predecessor, "Niger," was long used before the trans-atlantic slave trade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
two things that are truly "independent" are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way
Agreed. So then can we describe "the external"--really, a postulate of the external--as real or existent since rationalization can neither detect nor interact with it?
the apophatic phaneron
How does aphophatic phaneron control for one's mind?
missing info(before you can claim that "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho" either DOES (or) DOES NOT "exist", you must rigorously define "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho")
I am more than game to rigorously define whatever is needed. It should be noted that more than a month has passed since the scrutiny of the term, "exist," began.
(You and I both know that this discussion can go one way or another depending on which definitions apply. Thus, my hounding up until recently.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Because Maury said, " God, you are not the FATHER"?
I appreciate the humor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sorry, I should have said that he let him be killed.
And why did God let Jesus be killed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Clinton or Obama should certainly have beat Trump to it.JFK
Or Carter, or Kennedy, or Roosevelt, etc. The question is: why didn't they?
Fun Fact: Donald Trump is the only president to take a serious stance against Human and Child-sex trafficking. Add that to his pardon, and that makes him the most "feminist" President ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
On the centennial of the 19th amendment granting American women the vote, US President Donald Trump announced he would issue a posthumous pardon for Susan B. Anthony. A suffragette, Anthony was convicted of voting illegally as a woman in 1872. The response was mixed. Some applauded the president, others accused him of virtue signalling.
That's not virtue signaling; that's just pandering before an election. And he neither was the first nor will have been the last to pander in such a manner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
make up your mind
Don't misunderstand: I characterized myself as "a dick" because of my employment of sarcasm, not because of my objection to the meme-ing of the Russia-Ukraine conflict using these conceited, appalling, self-serving, profile pics--i.e. the Ukrainian flag colors with or without text. Just something to think about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mine is complete satire.
In 2021, the US imported an average of 209,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil and 500,000 bpd of other petroleum products from Russia, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) trade association.This represented three percent of US crude oil imports and one percent of the total crude oil processed by US refineries.That means every gallon of 4 dollar gas sends 12 cents to Putin's pocket. 10 gallons is $1.20That means every time these virtue signalers fill up their tank, they paid for a bullet to kill a Ukrainian. The epitome of insincere support bordering on delusion.
I understood the point of your profile picture--i.e. to lampoon both the meme and those who fill up their car with gas--presumably from Russia--in spite of their "Standing with Ukraine."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is virtue signalling really worth caring about?
No.
I support Ukraine as practically as I am able too.
How? You don't have a profile pic that sports the Ukrainian flag? Do you not intend to "Stand with Ukraine"?
Like loading boxes into my car and taking them to a collection point.
This is not a competition. If it were though, I don't see how you can compete with these profile pics even if you did donate your time and labor.
Which I couldn't have done if I had dumped all the gas.
Nonsense. That gas is just as responsible as the Russian military and therefore offsets your charitable efforts. You know what? I'm not even going to enjoy the sun today, because it rose in Russia first.
[I know I'm being a dick. But, these profile pics are truly appalling.]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
During his younger years, Putin was an atheist. He says he turned to the church after two major accidents in the 1990s—his wife’s car accident and a house fire. He now considers himself to be a devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church.I guess God loves people that kill people. Oh, that's right, he killed his only son.
"God loves people that kills people"? How do you figure? Second, how did God kill Jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I've never had any objections to theist presumptions.I simply just disagree with theist presumptions.
Fair enough.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman:
You neither know what I do in my spare time
You're right, I don't know what you do on your spare time. But that doesn't matter. Because the primary focus of my criticism are these profile pics. If you've done any of what I suggested, then I have no problem conceding that you've "supported" Ukraine. And let your conscience dictate whether or not you submit a lie. But I've encountered a type in my experience using social media, and the ones who are concerned with propagating memes, or conscripting others in these "scauses for applause" are usually doing nothing more than that.
if I or others would not do more towards it than spread awareness
You are not spreading awareness.
peer pressure support
"Peer pressure" support? You mean you intend to enlist others in your attention mongering by using emotional blackmail?
and get a fucking conversation going.
What conversation? Everyone here virtually knows everyone else here. What conversation have you started, other than bottomless pits of exchanges you have with known provocateurs?
Nobody in the entire world should not know of this event
Your audience is the world?
Just keep typing your bullcrap and act like a big man doing so much while really all you did was to encourage the assassination of people who happen to be rich and who actually are advising Putin against the war (yes, rich Russians are responding to the paralysis of their assets accordingly and were never for the war to begin with, it's unclear where Putin got the idea and it is likely it was China who advised it).
Is that what I said? Assassinate random rich people? C'mon RationalMadman, I'm confident your reading comprehension is much better than that.
All you are doing is whining and moaning
Neither whining nor moaning.
oh yeah i'm so cool i have afro samurai as my image hehe
It's actually an image of Huey Freeman from the comic strip and subsequent animated series, "The Boondocks." The character was created two years before Afro Samurai. Though, you do have a good eye in that the concept artist is the same for both series.
I'm not a poser I'm doing so much for Ukraine' fuck off.
I'm not pretending to do anything for Ukraine. I have enough respect for this conflict's gravity and the plight of the innocent people caught in it to neither mock nor trivialize it with online memes.
Enjoy your night, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
or is this typical dumbassery from people seeking immediate gratification through convenient virtue signaling?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your bitter resentment
Not resentful; just vexed.
would be better directed towards Putin
In all honesty, I'm not really concerned about Putin. He is but a small part of a larger apparatus.
however you are free to whine and scathe at the supporters of Ukraine if that floats your boat.
You are NOT supporting Ukraine with these profile pics. They're nothing more than memes which reflect the latest online outrage. Support Ukraine by getting off your ass and doing something. Even if you don't intend to fight in the front lines, you can donate your time. You can join groups that are helping the Ukrainian non-combatants evacuate. You can send money to fundraisers. You can volunteer and join relief efforts in providing food to the refugees. But, this appalling display here only tells me that the only thing you support is your online friends knowing how you feel.
And I get it, editing pixels allows you to feign support from a distance. And just so it's known, I'm not targeting just you. My response applies to every single member on this site who's donned the Ukrainian flag in some pseudo-display of so-called "support."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I personally don't believe that any of those celebrities are actually "atheists." Their proclamations of Atheism serves the purpose of undermining Christianity through their influence. Hollywood is a witch-coven, littered with Luciferians, Saturnians, Witches, Kabbalists, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
One assumes, as I'm not sure that the process is yet possible, that internally the electro-chemical sequences that produces internal imagery will be able to be replicated externally, or down loaded from the brain to device. Sounds like science fiction, but probably not far away.In essence no different to technological data transfer systems conversion of a digital sequence into a perceivable image. So the distinction would be the same as the distinction between digital processes and what is projected onto a monitor.
Exactly: you assume. So what is your objection to, for example, a theist's claiming and presuming "God is responsible for all of this"?
If and when we do manage to achieve these processes, the mystery that is the human mind will have been unravelled.
And what can this mystery reveal if it's still within domain of the mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, we're not. LOL!
Yes, you most certainly are.
That is literally impossible on this website, nobody gives a shit about some random debate art user,
Hold on to that thought...
instead if Ukranians turn up to this website they will see it and smile as opposed to wince at the cringey shitposting of some other members in favour of a tyrannical Russia.
"nobody gives a shit about some random debate art user...," right? If you're aware of this, why would you presume that a Ukranian who turns up to this website would smile at your virtue signaling?
As for the broader picture, things like this spread awareness and make clear who stands where. It's important to know if you're friends with somebody who is pro-imperialist-tyranny or not, I feel. I am certainly against it.
Nothing more than a means to draw attention to yourself. Awareness and clarity on where random debateart members stand does not help Ukraine.
You don't always have to murder people to do good,
Not at all what I stated.
there is already warfare happening on an economic level to the bankers and billionaires/millionaires that you are alluding to
No, there really isn't. As countries are pressured to mobilize in order to assist Ukraine (perhaps even U.N. Forces) these relief efforts will come at the expense of the taxpayers, whose funds will line the pockets, so to speak, of these international bankers. And that's the point: martial conflict is a cash-cow.
Created:
Posted in:
"A scause for applause" - South Park.
You are not supporting Ukraine with these profile pics; you're just trying to siphon some of the publicity concerning the events in Ukraine, and draw attention to yourself.
You want to help the people of Ukraine? Pick up a rifle and head to the front lines; offer Ukrainian refugees a place to stay; fly to the homes of the international bankers who sponsor global conflicts and pepper each of them up with bullets. Editing profile pictures among a group of people who likely already know where you stand on the issue is nothing more than attention mongering.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't believe the average German ever wanted to liquidate the Jewish people or take over Europe either but we democrats believe that the people are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their leaders.
Utter nonsense--your identifying as a democrat notwithstanding. The only ones responsible for their leaders behavior are the their leaders.
There was never a point in history when the German people weren't morally obligated to revolt against the NAZIs and hang the bastards themselves.
Why would this moral obligation have been restricted to just the German people? And there were Germans who opposed the Nazis (e.g. "White Rose Movement") and they were swiftly executed by the Nazis. Even though the Nazis were democratically elected, it does not mean that majoritarian consensus is an expression of each individuals intentions and values. In fact, it's not.
And if you're going to argue that as a democrat, you are responsible for the behaviors of your leaders, where was your revolt when U.S. soldiers were raping Japanese minors in Okinawa? Where was your revolt when the Clintons were and ARE STILL running pedophile rings in Haiti? Where was your revolt when Barrack Obama was ordering drone strikes on civilian populations? Where was your revolt when the U.S. government subsidized the Israeli mass murder of Palestinians? All these president's heads are still in tact. Are you responsible? No. No matter how much of a "democrat" you are. Unless you have been party to the cause of these particular events, you would be not be held responsible. Because believe it or not, political leaders could not be concerned less since they're not beholden nor obliged by "the will of the people."
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's important to remember the real people of Russia. They do not hate Ukrainians.
It would be beyond obvious to state this, yet you were compelled to because of some of the nonsense that was being posted earlier, e.g. "god-damned fucking Russians."
Created:
Posted in:
I agree that processes are seemingly one and the same. Call them thoughts, call them electro-chemical data processing.So we can detect the process, can we project the image externally?I don't see why not
How does one make the distinction between the "internal image" and the "external projection"?
Well, the argument that "atheism is irrational", is basically just a theistic dig at atheists.
Not just, but it can be. If one premises one's belief on an irrational premise, then at the very least one could argue that atheism can be based on the irrational.
Nonetheless, if we break the processes down to a base level of electro-chemical function, we can therefore question the rationality of all such processes, labelled theistic or atheistic or anything I suppose.Labelling outcomes wont alter the base reality of the argument. Which is, GODS are not actually known to be anything other than an internal electro-chemical process.
And what would be external? How is this external's independence controlled for independent of the "internal electro-chemical process"?
As of course, are NO GODS.
This is irrational.
So one processes and produces outcomes relative to acquired and stored data. So management/control of such processes is therefore a facet of one and the same process and it's acquired parameters......Self control or not, as might be judged.
So, I ask again: how does one make the distinction between the "internal image" and the "external projection"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
[a'] You can at least try and it can at least be reduced.
Bias is not quantifiable, and therefore cannot be "reduced." Whether it's a little biased or heavily biased, bias is still bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
What gap are you referring to ?
Pardon. What "overlap" is that?
P1 requires demonstration.
Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual." (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist. If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist. And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known. Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."
P1 demonstrated.
Athias 454 :[1.] I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.[1.] You forgot to answer my question.
Your question was already addressed in post #440.
[2.] I suspected as much. That is why I corrected you.
You've corrected nothing; once again, I was not confirming your statement.
[3.] Why is that ?
Because of the meaning of "value."
4.'] We are arguing about definitions while you should be supporting your claim.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. And that's my point. You questioned the definitions I've submitted, and when pressed to expand on your scrutiny, you provide rather than substantiation, more questions.
It is the prerogative of the side that presents a case / argument to choose definitions, within reason.
"Within reason"? What would be an unreasonable choice?
[4.''] Because it is false.
Substantiate your assertion that my position is false.
[78] Name-giving is not an assumptive characteristic.
This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You claimed "knowing something about X requiring information from X" is an assumption. I rejected your characterizing it as an assumption, and then subsequently demanded that you "substantiate this assumptive characteristic."
Please explain how “[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?” is supposed to support that one cannot know Spino does not exist.
Because, "Spino" is an identifier, i.e. a name which provides information. Once you've identified "Spino," acknowledged information of its existence.
[b] In debates I have the habit of using words that are not an argument. I have noticed you do that too. Is that inappropriate ?
No matter how many times you attempt to reciprocate in this tit for tat, "seem" is not now nor has it ever been an argument. And when you employ it in your discussions with me, I will without fail point that out.
If you can't find the right terms to make your argument,
I already did and submitted them.
you may even invent terms.
Are you being facetious?
You could for example add a qualifier before or after 'exist' or 'existence'.
No need.
I have shown no unwillingness to assume my burden.
Yes, you most certainly have.
You on the other hand have shown unwillingness to assume your burden of proof.
I'm the only person in our discussion providing information to his argument. You see, I am not lazy.
You have again failed to answer my question
I didn't fail to answer your question. Your question was already addressed in post #454.
[a''] You are correct: I haven't stated there is something unnecessary in your definition.
What? Do you not remember this:
[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias, unnecessary limitations and unnecessary complications and filling.
[b] I don't understand, but since I am not interested in discussing definitions and don't want to give you more excuses to stall, I don't object.
Stalling? Buddy, I asked you about these definitions over a month ago. And it's just in latest response that you've made a decision about them one way or another; I am not the one who's stalling.
[c] You were impolite.
My politeness is not a subject of discussion.
[d] I don't know.
You have affirmed that my position is false. Is that not based on a counterexample or counterfactual?
It is your claim (premise P1). I suspect that with God (not) existing people mean God is part of reality, i.e. makes reality different through his existence, other than by being believed to exist. Reality can be considered to be the universe.
Is this the position you maintain? Because I'm not having a discussion with "people." I'm having a discussion with you.
The question was : “Does everything include nonexistent things?”, where everything is all things that exist.Your response : “Nothing does not exist. The nonexistent does not exist.”I agree that answers the question.
Then what was your point in stating that it didn't answer your question to begin with? And yes, I excluded the last sentence of the portion because that is your response, not mine. I only own that I which I state.
[g] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.
The laws of physics or nature are inextricably tied to Mathematics--an abstract; logic is abstract. So when you state you measure "impossibility," you are applying abstracts, correct?
[81] So the nonexistent cannot be imagined. Does imagining something nonexistent cause it to exist or is it impossible to imagine something if it does not exist prior ?
Neither. The nonexistent does not exist, and therefore there is no "it" to imagine. And if "it" exists prior to one's imagination, then its existence is independent of one's imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly my dilemma.We think and we assume.And rigged up to a monitor, a real time electro-chemical process relative to a given thought could probably be detected.So we could easily prove that the process is existent.
And how is the observation of the process any less subject to thought than the internal image?
Though whether the relative internal image or narrative is existent separate from the process is less certain.
Is that really the subject of argument? Nevertheless, if we were to entertain it, why would the presumption that it's separate from the process any less "imagined" than its association to said process?
And for sure I think that an imagination is a thought process, variously defined.Basically just internal data processing.In fact sitting here typing this text, I seemingly, simultaneously think, imagine and type.
Exactly. So how does one control for one's internal data processing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Too voter-centric. And I agree that voting sucks, but I would submit that forfeiture is at the bottom of the list of reasons (especially considering that voting on forfeits require incredibly short RFD's.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Imagination is an internal electrochemical thought process that occurs.
And you think this is what imagination is? Can you observe this independent of your capacity to imagine?
Though whether or not, the illusory outcome of this occurring process is existent
Why wouldn't it? Isn't your description of an "internal electronchemical thought process" absent your capacity to control for your thoughts independent of your own mind functionally identical to that which you'd characterize as illusory?
Created: