Ramshutu

hypothetical. someone is traveling at almost the speed of light. they then turn on a flash light. i understand that how all observers to this will see the light move at a constant, the speed of light. that's based on relativity and frames of reference. 

what i dont understand, if an observer sees someone almost going at the speed of light, wouldn't the light have to appear to be going faster than light speed given the person moving and the light being emitted are in fact moving at different speeds? 

is it possible to appear to be moving at faster than light speed even if that's not in fact true? 

Before I tell you, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that ping pong balls have any intelligence to properly make a choice

My step-by-step approach is:

1) Look for any place that was +1 for opponent. I can easily place 2 there knowing neither are wasted.

2) Look for any place that is tied. I can easily place 1 there knowing it is not wasted.

The above two steps guarantee 100% efficiency. After that deciding what to do with the leftover is more subjective, though as a rule you should ignore zones that are relatively secure for you and ones that are relatively secure for your opponent.

A good day sir #72, is when someone is completely unable to mount a logical defence of their point; and so makes up for this total failure by blaming some perceived issue or slight for their failure to respond.

Again makes no sense because if it were  “completely” I would’ve left (like I said I’m still here and I don’t have to make up for anything because I didn’t do anything wrong), you can call that splitting hairs if you want but fact of the matter is there’s a huge fundamental difference between staying and going and the former applies to me.

Even if that was true (which it wasn’t) that has nothing to do with my question in regards to immorality? Hence why why I didn’t “challenge” any of the dribble you were spewing.

as nothing about my argument means that immorality doesn’t exist.

Then why did you take issue and move the goal post when I asked you a question in regards to it? Because the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.

so the only way for immorality to not exist; is for morality to be non existent. Basically explaining that we’re both talking about the same thing

The former sentence does not explain the latter sentence in the slightest, just because two things are dependent on something else’s existence doesn’t mean those two things are the same thing hence why they’re TWO things, two is separate from one genius lol.

You’ve lost me on all of this and maybe I can try to read it back to try to understand what your trying to say but just like the other things you’ve said this too will also be ignored.

…That makes no sense, the slight and issue is exactly why the accusation is false, just because I don’t respond to every stupid thing you say doesn’t mean I’m saying “good day sir” or leaving for that matter, I’m still here and I was there the last time we got into a similar dispute on a previous thread, you left. 

Which you still failed to do, because I wasn’t equivocating in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth considering my separation of the two terms emphasizes their distinction. So if anything I was emphasizing not equivocating, miss me with that.

“are you denying the existence of immorality?”

What a ridiculous straw man #38 morality is subjective - not non-existent

I said IMMORALITY, again comprehension dude.

Don’t be an obtuse cretin Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existent in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist.

This makes no sense, if morality and immorality are “packed together” like you claim they are you wouldn’t feel the need to separate them in your definition.

That was in reference to your question not the edit, why would I say I never said an edit, if it wasn’t for my mention of the edit you wouldn’t have bothered to go back and check, clearly I wanted you to see the edit.

I must conclude you are unable to respond to them.

Or you can conclude that I just don’t want to waste my time splitting hairs.

Argument by assertion…. Denying something is true is assertive.

So I guess denying something is true is an argument, my point exactly.

The two parts of this sentence are unrelated as I stated.

And so were the two parts they were in reference to

I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are

That was in reference to you accusing me of saying one morality and another, as far as I’m concerned there’s no another because like I said that’s your argument not mine.

I’m not begging the question I’m asking it

That was in reference to you accusing me of begging the question.

don’t be an absurd cretin. Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existence in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist. Stop trying to object for the sake of it.

I don’t even know what this means but clearly it’s not hair splitting if my mention of it lead to you accusing me of more fallacies.

What it means, is that you have things that can be considered moral, and things that can be considered immoral. They are packed together in “morality” - a moral framework. Morality is the framework through which we decide whether things are moral or immoral. 

If things that are immoral don’t exist - it can only be because morality - the moral framework doesn’t exist. So you’re argument conflates morality - meaning things that are moral, with morality - meaning the framework through which we determine things that are moral and immoral. This is equivocation #59 - splitting hairs.

Secondly, the premise that it can’t be splitting hairs if I point out that you’re splitting hairs - is another stupid non-sequitur #60.

Again however - this is still a red herring #61; the argument you made was a silly straw man - you’re not defending it, meaning you have conceded #62 the important point.

Saying this: all of this is completely irrelevant

Exactly how I felt about the points I ignored from you.

Lastly I don’t know if your numbering things to be annoying or you actually think your saying something but if it’s the latter maybe you should consider explaining the accusations your accusing me of because without the explanation they’re just that accusations.

I’m not denying the edit, that’s why I told you that I said more in case you missed it (it meaning the edit) you mad bro?

which you have conceded

I haven’t conceded jack, unless you got a direct quote from me keep your dishonesty in your pocket. It’s bad faith.

denial is not an argument.

Actually it is.

Whether or not I am claiming there is “more than one morality” has absolutely no relevance or impact on whether you’re begging the question or not: this is a red herring #37

This is exactly why I ignore half your posts and only pick apart the ones of utmost relevance to me because of your lack of comprehension, I’m not claiming what your accusing me above but I have a right to defend myself against untrue accusations especially ones that can be disproven true since these forum posts are evidence in itself but you can continue arguing this fruitless point if you want, I recognize that if I play tit for tat with you I’ll end up writing a long meaningless essay straying from the original point.

I am not denying the existence of morality wtf?

I said IMMORALITY, again comprehension dude.

I don’t know I never said that but I said more than what you quoted above in case you missed it.

Except I’m not begging the question I’m asking it and I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are, and are you denying the existence of immorality? If so then essentially your saying it’s not immoral if someone were to kill you and your entire family, you sure you want to go down that path?

For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them.

Except I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality, you are.

Impossible,  you say. Yet you're basing your determinism on that impossibility.

Whereas, my argument of free choice has so many examples I've offered, with citations of support.

that just the examples offer an occam's razor basis of far more simplistic explanations.

How many choices have I made in a lifetime that rest on a knife edge, let alone a razor? I'd say less than five or ten. Even the choice of a house or a car is more blunt than that.  My marriage? Yeah, because that was a lifetime commitment, but that one was an easy edge. And, considering the success of its longevity... Career choices? Pretty dull and easy. What shirt to wear? Really?

I've had exactly two life-and-death consequence decisions over which I had control in my life. Yeah, those were tough, but, obviously, the right choice made both times. And both were preceded by prayer. That's one of the primary, sharp tools in my toolbox, and I'm speaking to my Father, not some electron.

How do you know those cultures are moral and not immoral?

It is an unequivocal fact that morality changes over time; I pointed this out by talking about morality in different cultures over time (which of course you ignored #30) - our morality and emotional responses makes sense under the umbrella of evolved social behaviour (as I have explained - and which you have dropped #31 all objection to), and makes utterly no sense as the result of some manifestation of a higher authority’s command or will (it’s not clear exactly what the relationship is - as you won’t say).

So in this respect; I don’t know what else to say; it’s not possible to argue with someone who is this unwilling to accept reality..

One electron? Tell me who has, can, or will be sensitive to the placement, or displacement, more properly said, of a single electron and its potential, monumental effect. That's not too exaggerated, is it?

I'm no chemist, but my father was. My high school chemistry classes taught me that the bonding of molecules [systems created by the bonding of atoms of one element, say H, and O, thus creating a molecule of water. That bonding is due to the displacement of electrons such that they are shared between the two atoms of H and the one of O. Further, my father taught that water does not exhibit the property of wetness until 6, or more molecules of water exist together, so, under that threshold, you may have "water," but it isn't yet wet. A single electron, though, even if displaced, is not sufficient to have any effect of bonding a molecule, let alone change properties that would affect human behavior consistently or randomly. 

I already addressed this argument.

If this were true then that would ultimately lead to ethical and moral standards being fundamentally impossible to interpret because it’s inconsistent and inconsistency doesn’t make any sense.

Except your use of it twice in the beginning and the end means you didn’t only use it in the beginning, which you denied previously due to your dishonesty, liar.

I see the word success TWICE in this argument so I see your two lies and I’ll raise it times two with four lies because you lied here my friend.

Exactly and you began talking about social animals success and ended talking about success (still not sure what you mean by that).

Circular reasoning, yet you want to accuse me of fallacies 🥱.

I could answer that “whether one ‘cares’ about a group or not is irrelevant - and not part of my argument, and your objection is thus straw man

But that would be dishonesty and not good faith because you said and I quote

“we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.”

1.) Is choice an illusion.

No.

I don’t need to defend caring for overall groups, that’s your claim not mine.

No.

Why should we care about overall groups?

You don’t need to love people to survive, there’s plenty of hateful people that are still alive.

Fact of the matter is the language your using is distinct from the language I am and the recognization of that distinction is why it’s not ambiguous or hair splitting for that matter.

Side note: Your way too hung up on the (greater authority) half of my question where you lose sight of the question itself (which I’ve said already) to make it easier on yourself answer this why do we emote? Forget I mentioned anything about a higher authority.

No I’m not, there’s a difference between what causes emotions and saying we shouldn’t have them, the former is an issue of science and the latter is an issue from within. Your inability to see that difference is why we’re not making any progress. My argument is conditional so it’s not arguing for or against religion, it’s my belief that if the universe is loving and caring then so should the humans that live in it but if the universe is cold and uncaring then vice versa because after all aren’t we extensions of the universe?

I’m not even going to respond to the other stuff because we went in circles with that enough already.

Determinism shouldn’t even be a debate anymore. We should just get on with our lives.  

We have emotions: and they presumably have some sort of cause.

Except no one is disputing the cause of emotions, the dispute is whether or not we should have them.

What you’re sound now, is simply haggling and word play to try and argue a question that is based on assuming a positive claim is not a positive claim

No, and I already addressed this in my previous post (you either intentionally avoided it or misunderstood it) I also acknowledged that my question assumed a positive claim but I answered that positive claim with a negative response (see #87) the disconnect here is you still feel that warrants an extra question, and sorry to break it to you but that’s just not how logic works.

very closely related

No it’s not, it’s a conditional positive claim that one can only deny once accepting the condition, you still haven’t and if you did your claim would look like it DOESN’T make logical sense to have emotions if a higher authority tells us to, is that what you believe?

No, I have. I covered it pretty well in post 97.

That’s not what I was referring to, I was referring to an answer to this POSITIVE question

But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?

In which you responded with a question of your own, but to make it easier on yourself (assuming you attempt an answer) ignore the latter half of it.

No I’m not (although that’s what I believe) I claimed it makes logical sense to have them if a higher authority tells us to, that’s separate from the claim your accusing me of.

No you haven’t and if you did you diluted your other arguments by asserting I had the burden of proof when in reality you did (hence the so called explanation you’ve yet to provide).

Asking you to provide justification of why some higher power is required in order for emotional responses to exist is not asking you to “prove a negative”. It’s the opposite.

That’s not what I was referring to, I was referring to

On what basis do you think having emotions “doesn’t make sense” without a greater authority.

That’s a negative question, a positive one would be on what basis do you think having emotions DOES make sense without a greater authority, but that shifts the burden of proof on YOU.

I am genuinely not sure what your point is here.

Gee, what a surprise.

Funny how you and your mate, Ram, interpret my arguments in your own words, completely missing my argument in the process. I have never argued for mixed determinism, nor random determinism. 

I argue that there is no determinism, but that events in the universe have cause and no cause, but neither due to what you think, because, as I have also argued, the universe has no beginning as you might interpret it with a big bang, because the universe both expands, and  then contracts in cycles. As a result, the "cause" of one cycle is merely the conclusion of the previous cycle, directed by a god whose dominion is the new cycle, and who allows humans who are born, live, die, and resurrect within that cycle their free agency. However, within any given cycle, random events still occur.

Neither of you say boo about any of that other than ridiculing the notion, which is far more simplistic than any explanation I've heard from either of you for determinism.

Then why, pray tell, did we arrive at the billiard table of declaration that the universe was geocentric, a belief of laws of physics, applied to billiards, by the way, in antiquity, whereas, Galileo demonstrated it was not in the 17th century, but was placed under house arrest for his theory, and we held the theory of geocentrism until mid 19th century? Hmmm? Determinism failure, as I have previously argued without successful rebuttal.

No it doesn’t; that’s just an assertion pulled out of your arse... little more than rank speculation

Another strawman. Who says it's an assertion beside your own assertion of laws of physics? You do. Who says it's just rank speculation. My sources, that's wgo, against which you... In spite of my evidence that laws of physics change, and are not immutable...  I've offered you plenty of sources supporting my view. You offer... zip. Not even your arse. I thought you were keeping it civil. You said so, but that's a direct accusation, friend, and I will reply. This Christian is not compelled by turned cheeks. It's my arse, aftrer all. You take care of yours, ok?

Which big bang? The problem with causation, and determinism, is that they limit the cause to a single bang

What if there are repeated bangs; a cycle of them? One bang caused the next. Infinite regression and progression.

Or did the universe determine for you that it's one trip around the block? Limiting, isn't it? Well, some do think our brain is limited. too. I don't.

Interaction? Chemicals are atoms, of a variety of compositions, thus expressing themselves as various compounds: thus, the science of chemistry.  It is our thought processes in the brain that interact with the chemistry, and its variability based on environment, and somewhat on our past behavior. 

how laughable your claim that everyone’s brain would be the same if our brains adheres to determinism.

But that is not what I said. Don't put your words in my mouth. I said that the universe is incapable of distinguishing our person-to-person's brain chemistry in order to allegedly "know" how to influence our person-to-person variances in thought and action such that we do not all behave in similar manner, because chemsitry is also the basis of that alleged physics law of the universe, which is not immutable.

you’re just injecting the necessity as an unfounded assertion in order to be able to assume your own conclusion

…That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, so if you can make sense of it all then by all means go ahead the floor is yours (and it has been for quite some time now).

The basis that no one is able to give me an answer when asked the question.

The strawman is that you draw distinction. It's all chemistry, of which brain chemistry is a sub-set due to specific  elements involved.

As my source cited [ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180710104631.htm ], chemistry is essential to understand anatomy, they are inseparable sciences, and each organ of the body has chemical function. And that source stipulated that such anatomy and chemistry are unique to individuals, so, of course, the same physics aplied by the action of universal elements will not yield the same behavior in all persons, as the source also said. Therefore, your argument is the strawman.

https://sciencing.com/regulation-co2-body-5007.html explains why chemistry, even being the same elements, will exhibit different resulting phenomena based on our actions, such as what we, by our choice, stuff in our pie hole. The body can only work with the ingredients it is given, and we choose poorly, such as a constant diet of fast food, the proteins our cells build will suffer from inadequate ingredients, and determinism is not the source of that choosing, because, as shown by my source, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can-change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better those choices can change over time, and that's not the universe coercion talking.

With the citations I've offered supporting my idea, against which you throw laws of physics, which, again, used to say the Earth was the center of the universe, so they can be and have been wrong, free will is a valid argument.

You’re entire premise that different people in different environments at different times, must all develop identically if mediated by deterministic laws is a stupid premise. There is no other way to describe it; it is refuted by simply looking at clouds, or beaches.

And your determinism says we will always think and act consistently. That's absurd, and I've offered evidence against that, too. Yet, you still flaunt laws of physics.

Assuming that’s all the brain is, 

Speaking of shyte, you know what assumptions make. Premature efactulation. Your assumption is patently false. No one, no where, no when, has demonstrated the physical presence of thought, only the results of thought: action. Again. Show me thought as a physical property. The challenge stands. That you want to ignore it is on you.

Why not? Someday, you will find that all is encompassed in one eternal round. No, physics did not teach me that. There are greater laws than physics.

I don't appreciate yupur incivility. Clean it up, Bud.   am not stupid. And your response ignores my last citation that, even given same circumstances, we can think and react differently than in times passed. Free will, not detemrinism, or we would ALWAYS react the same way, and we clearly do not, even in identically repeated circumstances.

Show me how thought is a physical entity. Just show me. The chemical & physics involvement accepted, still, thought is not a physical property.

You mean, the universe and its alleged determinism? We tell ourselves to emote, and not by suggestion of any physics law. Physics is not the be-all, end-all of existence. Release your self from that trap, you begin to see the true human potential to be divine. No physics there. There's a greater law than physics, to which even physics bows.

If you really want to know what that law is, it's called priesthood, the law by which God acts, and a law in which we are being schooled. Priesthood is synonymous with truth and light and intelligence.

Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?

Because it wouldn’t make sense to do it otherwise.

The reason is that this assumes that everyone's brain chemistry is the same