Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
Only RTS game that I have ever actually enjoyed playing was a game called homeworld. I still play it to this day sometimes but it is about 20 years old now so I am hesitant to recommend it as the graphics are a bit dated and many people actually care about things like that.
To be clear the graphics and engine were fucking godly for its time but, you know... It's time was 1999.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Also, is math “maximally great”?
Freudian slip, he subconsciously knows that is a meaningless term so forgot about it when he told you to apply the argument to "math".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
According to the second premise EVERYTHING that possibly exists exists in some possible world. Do you agree with this?Yes I would agree.
So... you said earlier that Brahma possibly exists.
And you now say that possibly existing means existing in some possible world.
So that means you must believe Brahma exists in some possible world.
This is not hard to follow. There is no reason, well no logical reason anyway, that you should be so hesitant to admit that you think Brahma exists in some possible world. Why not just make this admission then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
You're ignoring literally every other point I made,
I am just following the ontalogical argument. According to the ontalogical arguments second premise EVERYTHING that could possibly exist exists in some "possible world".
Do you believe this premise is accurate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
You said before that you believe Brahma possibly exists, the next question is... Do you believe that Brahma exists in see possible world?No I don't.
So you do believe that Brahma possibly exists but that Brahma does not exist in some possible world.
Therefore you do not believe that all things which possibly exist must necessarily exist in some possible world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I see nothing wrong with dancing in public as long as you are with a group of friends that you wish to embarrass. I wouldn't do so if I was alone though, that would just be weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
DASHING THROUGH THE SNOW, IN A ONE HORSE OPEN SLEIGH, OVER FIELDS WE GO... LAUGHING ALL THE WAY
HA HA HA
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I've already answered that multiple times
You have answered my question zero times. You instead chose to answer a different question, that being "Does the OA prove Brahma exists?". You answered that with a 'no'. That is not the question I asked though.
So again I ask you... do you think that Brahma exists in some possible world? The answer to this question is either yes or no.
Created:
Posted in:
Okay well I guess since I already invested all that time reading the thread just to only at the end realize it was necroed I will at least put in my two cents, which is to say... Why the hell are you nerds paying over $100 for goddamn phones? Seriously what the hell?
Oh also, this vid was made years ago but still hilariously relevant today and good for a laugh...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
But does Brahma exist in some possible world or not?
Created:
Posted in:
He is a low-key huster waiting for the right moment to make his move.
When the random topics feature brings up a thread and all you notice is that you once misspelled the word hustler over three months ago...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I get what you are saying, you have been pretty clear and your message is incredibly simple.
To say that the argument 'gets us to the conclusion that a max being exists' requires that you believe the argument is valid. We are only talking about the ontalogical argument here since that is the topic of the thread. If you think it is invalid in the case of Brahma then please explain why within the scope of the argument that we are actually talking about.
You also never gave an answer to my question - Does the 'max being' Brahma exist in some possible world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wishful thinking.
Yeah that's the point. Sure it isn't realistic, what OP is asking though is whether people would go for it if it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I see. I guess I read the chart wrong.
No you were pretty spot-on as a general approximation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
This must have been very time consuming for you. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Too busy in life. Working overtime at work and looking around for a house to buy.
I still log in to DART a lot, just not for anything time consuming like mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
According to that around 19% are like you and I and would like infinite life, around 42% just want life extension for a little bit.
So yeah you are right it is around a third. Wow. That is a lot lower than I would have expected.
I suspect that there is probably a correlation between religiousness and likihood of desiring longer lives, with more religious people being more likely to want life to be shorter.
Created:
Posted in:
1/3 seems a bit low. I understand it not being 100% but I am surprised to see it be under 50%. May be that I am biased since I am one who would certainly prefer to life longer, entropy probably makes infinite life implausible but a few trillion years would be nice ;-).
Might I ask where you heard this 1/3 figure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Several days early actually because
AND A HAAAAAPYYYY NEEEEW YEEEEAR
Created:
Posted in:
Good tidings we bring, to you and your kin. Godd tidings for Christmas and a happy new year!!!
Created:
Posted in:
MEEEEERY CHRIIIIISTMAS MOTHERFUCKERS! I LOVE ALL OF YOU!
Created:
Posted in:
WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Created:
Posted in:
WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Is it possible Brahma exists? If we look at just the Ontological argument alone, supposing Brahma meets the requirements of a MGB, then yes, just on that argument alone that could be a possibility.
Well yeah that is the topic of the conversation so obviously that is what we are looking at lol.
Anyway now that we have established that you think Brahma possibly exists we must ask the next question from the OP.
Does Brahma, who is according to Hinduism maximumally great, exist in some possible world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I wouldn't try to disprove the existence of Allah or Brahma. I would present a positive case for Christianity
So you accept the arguments in favor of these three beings and others, such as the ontalogical argument, while refusing to offer any argument against them. Sounds to me like you have no reason not to admit that they exist.
Here is an idea, let's take this just one step at a time and you can tell me where the logic fails.
So first question - Is it possible that Brahma exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
The ontological argument doesn't prove Christianity unfortunately it just proves Theism
According to you it proves every fictional being that claims to be all-powerful. One need simply add "also it is an all powerful being" to the definition of some being and *poof* it starts to exist.
How would you go about proving that any of those beings you mentioned don't actually exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
When we say possible world we don't mean a fantasy world, we simply mean a world in which we can conceive.
Uh-huh, and I am conceiving a world right now where Brahma exists. I am doing it right now as I type this.
Is Brahma real yet? According to you the answer is no. According to you the world I am concieving is completely fictional as per post 45.
Let me say that one more time... According to you this world is completely fictional despite being easily conceived by the mind.
Let me know when you start believing in Brahma so I can switch my references to a different fictional omnipotent being. I may have you believing in all of them by the time 2020 rolls around lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
To say that something is possible is to say it could possibly exist, which is to say that it exists in a possible world.
Okay, let's take the (according to you fictional) world where Hinduism is accurate and Brahma exists. How does Brahmas existing in this fictional world affect anything in reality? The idea that details of a fictional world could affect reality is retarded.
If a MGB exists He by definition must exist in all possible worlds rather than some.
But according to you Brahma exists only in the fictional world of the Hindu holy texts. That means that - according to you at least - it is possible for a 'Maximum Being' (whatever the hell that even means) to exist in some worlds and not others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
it's a complicated way of going about it.
That is kind of the point. As a theists suffering from confirmation bias I could easily take your true but short statement "seems odd to conclude that our universe - which is on the whole antagonistic to life - was designed for it." and dismiss it out of hand without thinking about it despite it being a very basic and easy to understand concept. I try to go about it in a way that forces them to actually put some mental effort into the conversation. Well, until they just stop responding entirely I guess =\
Like I said in post 73 it is moreso the method itself I was looking for commentary on. You say it is a bit complicated. Do you think that is a bad thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@oromagi
@PressF4Respect
Tagging the people who have posted here that I would like the opinion of... I wish one of our smarter theists had posted here so I could tag them too (siranon would be such a person but he is currently on vacation from DART)
Please read my exchange with Dr.Frank starting at post 32. I think it is pretty obvious where I was going with it and that is why he stopped replying but I would like to know if there is something that I missed. It is a method I came up with to try to help people take a more realistic look at the fine-tuning argument in light of the fact that life is only barely possible in our universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Which of the premises do you reject? And why do you reject them?
Two is shaky and three is objectively absurd but the whole thing is built on a bad foundation in the first place since it basically boils down to "I define this hypothetical thing as existing therefore it exists".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
like a math equation, you can't escape the conclusion.
The conclusion does follow logically from the premises.
The problem is that the premises are blatantly invalid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's a lot of <br>. Is that on purpose, or is the bug getting worse?
Not on purpose, though I do recall using the 'undo' button several times in that post. That might be related.
More to the point, a maximally great being would be one that is maximally great in every respect. It would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
I don't see how that makes premise 3 valid in any way. Just because you define something and put in the definition 'also this thing exists', I just don't see how that makes it exist. Just because you say so. You know? Premise 3 really is where it all falls apart.
Unless by omnipotent you mean 'able to do anything' rather than 'able to do anything within the world/world's that it exists in'... If that is what is meant by omnipotent then premise 2 is the breaking point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
<br><br><br>I've tried to find an error in the logic and to disprove it (for the simple reason that, even though I believe in God, I don't like this argument), but I've never been able to prove an error in it.
Really? Nothing at all seems wrong to you? Then you must have a coherent and useful definition for this '''Maximally Great Being" it refers to. If you do then please let me know, none of its defenders have ever given me one. If you don't then well... There is the error you were looking for.
Created:
-->
@LordLuke
When I read other people talk, they will talk like they actually know the subject and have dealt with it it seems like.Like they feel confident that what they think is true, and they will say that x is a scam or that the problem with it isn't this but it's this.
The Dunning-Kruger effect tends to be amplified on the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
2. "If the proton or neutron masses changed even slightly, then there would just be a cloud of neutrinos."
Is this claim tested?
Protons and neutrons are basically the same thing, just three quarks stuck together. The only difference is that they are different types of quarks. All quarks types have the same mass though so it is pretty meaningless to imagine a universe where protons and neutrons have different masses in the first place since the only such universe that could exist would be one where quarks are fundamentally different from how they appear in our own universe, thus protons and neutrons could not exist in such a universe in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
So, is it reasonable to conclude that this iodine-sterilized petri dish was optimized for E. Coli habitation?Sure, I mean WTF
Just to confirm before I ask my final question... I can have you on the record as saying that a petri dish sterilized with iodine is an optimal place for bacteria to live, so much so that whatever doctor/microbiologist/highschool student sterilized the petri dish must have done said sterilization with the intention of creating a place for bacteria to live rather than with the exact opposite intent, that being to kill as many as possible?
Created:
Posted in:
maybe
Okay so we take HU-3, a universe that is much much better suited for human life than our own universe and it 'might' have been created for the purpose of human habitation? okay, sounds like you aren't completely sure though. Yet when we look at the less-suitable-for-life universe you say 'definately yes'. Okay.
Well here is the penultimate question then. If I take a petri dish filled with E. Coli bacteria and put a few drops of iodine in it I will kill off most of the bacteria. I remember doing this in highschool biology class, we would use iodine for the purpose of killing off bacteria in a petri dish. Let's say that I kill off all but .00001% of them, orders of magnitude more survivable than that 0.0000000002% figure from HU-3 which is in turn orders of magnitude more survivable than our universe.
So, is it reasonable to conclude that this iodine-sterilized petri dish was optimized for E. Coli habitation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Okay, 'technically possible' and ''not incoherent'. Sounds simple enough.
Of course HU-2 is significantly more habitable than our own universe. Most of the trillion or so cubic kilometers of the earth is magma or solid rock so if a human were to teleport to anywhere within the area our planet takes up the odds of them being alive at the end of the trip is much lower than winning the lottery.
So let's take a look at HU-3, it is much closer to being like our own universe than HU-2 is. 0.0000000002% of HU-3 is habitable for human life. That is still a lot more than our universe, what with the void of space and all, but this is almost my last question so I will be generous. 0.0000000002% it is.
Is it logical to conclude that HU-3 was created specifically for the purpose of human habitation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
sure
Okay cool that makes sense I'll take that answer. No argument here.
Of course that is just a hypothetical universe we have not observed and probably doesn't exist. We know our universe isn't like that because of, you know, Antarctica... Pluto... Mercury... Saturn...
Let's take another hypothetical universe, let's call it universe HU-2 (hypothetical uniniverse number 2). Let's say that 1% of HU-2 is habitable for human life and if humans travel to any of the rest of the 99% of it without complex, specialized, and expensive gear then they will die within a few seconds at most.
Just like last time I won't argue with your answer, just curious if you can give a quick yes or no on this one - Is it logical to conclude that HU-2 was specifically created for the purpose of human habitation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
sure, the universe is made for humans,
As I just said I am not referring to our universe. I am referring to a hypothetical one where 100% of it is liveable for human life.
This hypothetical universe, if such a thing existed, is it reasonable to conclude it was made for the purpose of human habitation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It is a yes or no question. I just want to hear your answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hypothetically if we had a universe where 100% of it was habitable for human life would that be good evidence that said universe was created just for humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I understand that ROs are now avaliable upon request, which I feel is a step in the right direction, but is it still the case that ROs can me put in place by mods between two users when neither requested one?
If so was this the case with this particular RO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What has people talking about Hong Kong all over the place all of a sudden? Chinese govt hold another "totally democratic referendum" or something? I don't watch/read news so legitly don't know.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Has it been a decade yet?
Sorry for not being clear, I was using the definition of decade that means "a period of time lasting ten years".
Hope that helps!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@bmdrocks21
I said tag me in a decade or two guys, it hasn't even been a week yet. Chill.
Created: