Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Thanks especially to SirAnonymous for his kind words.
You're welcome. You earned it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Or are you saying that you would kill my children because I do not have a belief of faith in god, if your god told you to do so?
It is impossible for me to know what I would do in any situation I have not experienced. You may as well ask me whether I would shoot my mother to save my father, what type of bread I would want on a manure sandwich, or any other number of useless hypothetical questions. The answer to all of them is, "I don't know. I've never been in that situation."
But let's suppose for a moment that the answer is yes. On what objective basis would you condemn me? This is what I'm trying to get at. I strongly disagree with you that God is evil. But even if He is, you have no basis to condemn Him, or anyone else. If all you have is the natural world, then you don't have an objective basis for morality. Nothing is morally good or morally bad. Sure, you can have opinions on morality, but, at the end of the day, they're just opinions. To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.
I'll ask again: do you have any objective basis for condemning God's actions? If so, what is it, and where does it come from?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not AD infinity it is AD 2020. See the problem is that whether time is infinite or not and I remain unconvinced of either proposition, we have clearly reached this year. Either time passes or it doesn't and if time pases then specific times can be reached. AD infinity is immaterial to the conversation.
AD infinity is indeed material to the conversation. If time had existed forever, then we would be living in the year Infinity, although not AD Infinity. Yes, time passes; however, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present year if time had existed forever. We would be in the forever that never comes. Thus, time cannot have existed forever.
That is true. I am not however making that positive claim. I am simply rejecting your position. This in no way necessitates taking the opposite position. My actual position and I want to make this perfectly clear is that we do not know if time is or is not infinite. It would appear based upon our best cosmology that gravity is tied to time so it would seem that without a physical universe there would be no time but our math breaks down at a point during the event that we colloquially refer to as the big bang.
Ok.
Excellent. Then you may proceed with the presentation of your evidence.
Very well. My evidence is a simple process of elimination. There are four possibilities (I forgot one the first time I listed them).
1. Time existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause.
2. Time hasn't existed forever, but it didn't have a cause.
3. Time hasn't existed forever, and it did have a cause.
4. Time has existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause, but it has one anyway.
Both of us reject possibility 4, the one I forgot earlier. Thus, I won't waste time on it. I have spent plenty of virtual ink showing why possibility 1 is impossible and possibility 2 is logically absurd. This only leaves possibility 3, which is that time has a beginning and a cause. This cause could be either within time (although it would have to be a different timeline than our own, for obvious reasons) or outside of time, i.e. timeless. If it was within time, then, by the same reasoning shown above, the timeline it was in would also need a cause. If the cause for that timeline was within time, then its timeline would need a cause, etc. Thus, the possibility that the cause for time is itself within time leads to an infinite regress, which is illogical. Therefore, the cause for time must be timeless.
Apparently we must now define "exists" for the purposes of this conversation. Apparently our axioms concerning this are not in line. Please present your preferred definition.
The definition from the Cambridge Dictionary is a good one. "To be, or to be real." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exist
How could a nothing as you describe it exist? It doesn't exist by definition.We do not charactersize things by the characteristics they lack as a general rule but rather by the characteristics they do have. What characteristics does a nothing have that identifies it as a nothing?
No, it doesn't exist. Nothing in the sense I'm using it is not a thing that exists; it's the absence of anything existing.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Then you have more morals and compassion than your own god. Congratulations.
Not really. You missed the key words that it "isn't a valid reason for me to kill anyone." As I explained in my other reply to you, I don't have the authority to carry out God's justice. God does have that authority. And that brings me back to this question: Do you think morality is objective or subjective? If it's subjective, then how can you have any objective basis for disagreeing with God's justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
RationalMadman leads BearMan 32.5-0
RM being that good at Fantasy Football completely fails to surprise me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
OK I will now prove myself wrong, That is Stonehenge in the Photos. It is the same location. Stonehenge has under gone restorations 3 times for fears of it collapsing. So with that said. It is in fact not the original Stonehenge but a refurbished and rebuilt Stonehenge.
It still has the original stones, though. Sure, it's been refurbished, but it's still a lot more original than Grandpa's Axe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I don't know, what is the motive of archaeologist to still insist the pyramids were built in 20 years by 10,000 people using wooden mallets and brass chisels.?
I don't think any archaeologist says that all the pyramids were built in 20 years. Building one or three in 20 years with those tools and workforce is definitely possible, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
What would the motive for building or moving Stonehenge in 1954 be? If they built it, everyone would have noticed and no one would have been fooled because those rocks weren't there earlier. There would be no way to fool the entire world into thinking that it was genuine. And if they just moved it, why would they bother hiding the fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I have to say: that was weirdly amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
You exist. Therefore, you must be pinged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's awesome. I love how the picture is taken with a camera, which is fairly modern technology, and that it is of horse and cart with an ancient construction in the background. It's like looking backwards through time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
So if I had used my suicide role, would that count as leaving town?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
maybe scum should have died from PGO but Mhar forgot
Could be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
*facepalms*I'm an idiot.ENDGAME WILL UP SOON.
Umm...what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
I just reread skittlez's claim.
hi everyone id like to claim uselessness itself. my role is im a visitor every night i visit someone and they get notified. i win with town
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
How would visiting Supa confirm you? I've never seen a visitor that causes a notification to be sent to the person they visit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
We should probably look into what roles are out there that cause the person visited to be told about it. Of course, this is a joke game, so there may not be a logical reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So Mharman told you skittlez visited you? That's really weird. Why would he do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
On second thought, that could apply to several different people. Oh well. Same thing goes for all of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Glad the crazy HoF satire Christian evil cultist isn't there.
Yeah, that dude is absolutely nuts. Don't pay any attention to him. Don't look him in the eye and don't talk to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I think I did that once when TRN and a user called TheGnosticAgnostic started arguing in a thread I started.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?
I didn't pay as much attention to your wording as I should have when I answered this above. No, you not having the same faith I have isn't a valid reason for me to kill anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
So why would mafia kill Pie? He wasn't very active, so I don't get why they would kill him.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh, duh. Croc was lynched. I forgot. So how was Pie killed? Strongman?
Created:
Posted in:
Well, that's interesting. Croc must have accidentally bussed himself and Pie to death. I'm trying to figure out how that would work.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
My brain skipped over this for whatever reason.
In fact I don't even know what you mean when you say nothing. You don't seem to be using the word in the way cosmologists use it for example, which is a vacuum which is actually something. Can you define the characteristics of this proposed nothing?
I could only characterize nothing in the context of this discussion by what it doesn't have. Nothing would be the complete absence of matter, space, time, energy, and everything else.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you choose any point on an infinite timeline, say for example the big bang, and waited for another point, say the heat death of the universe, then you would have a finite set within an infinite set. You seem to be arguing that infinite time, which I am not actually arguing must or even could be the case, would prevent time from passing completely.
No, I'm not saying that time wouldn't be passing.
Time would still pass in an infinite timeline there just would always be more to go.
This. This is exactly what I'm saying. If you pick some point that's an infinite amount of time in the future, then it would always be in the be in the part of "always more to go." Forever never comes. If time had always existed, then an infinite amount of time before the present. The present (our present, that is) would be the forever that never comes. Time would still pass in an infinite timeline, but there would always be more to go, and the present would always be in the future of "more to go."
It would not prevent events from taking place.
Will anything happen in the year AD Infinity? I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Time will never reach that point. No matter how large a finite number is, you can just keep adding to it. There is never a point when adding 1 to a finite number will make it infinity. Thus, time will always be finite, no matter how long it goes on. AD Infinity will never arrive. If time had always existed, we would be in the year Infinity that never arrives.
I am not claiming something can come from nothing I am saying that it is a black swan fallacy to say that everything must have a cause. Please try to keep up.
If time and the universe didn't have a cause, then that would be something from nothing, which is a positive claim that you need to support if you're going to claim it.
If it is not special pleading then why could we not propose literally any cause and simply say it was "outside of time". Like say a singularity which would then expand into time and space as a result of purely naturalistic forces unguided by any mind.
We would have to have evidence that it actually is outside of time. Simply saying "It must be outside of time because my argument falls apart if it isn't" would absolutely be special pleading, but that isn't what I'm saying.
Also in order for something to exist as we understand it it must have space to exist in and time to exist during. Those would seem to be prerequisites for existence.
"Seem to be" based on what? You're simply slipping your conclusion into your premise here.
Can you demonstrate anything that exists outside of time and space or only hypothesize about some god(s) who by default are the only thing(s) that could (the very definition of special pleading)?
That is exactly what my argument about time is for. Since time cannot have existed forever, then it had a cause, unless you want to defend something coming from nothing. A cause for time cannot itself be bound by time. There are three possibilities here:
1. Time existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause.
2. Time hasn't existed forever, but it didn't have a cause.
3. Time hasn't existed forever, and it did have a cause.
I've spent plenty of virtual ink showing why 1 is impossible, and 2 is something from nothing, which is logically absurd. This only leaves 3, which is neither impossible nor logically absurd.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
We are still dealing with a mathematical infinite. You seem to be siting a difference with no real distinction.
There is a real difference. As I pointed out earlier, Zeno divided a finite number in an infinite number of ways. My argument is dealing with a number that is actually infinite. If you were immortal and you sat down to wait for a finite amount of time to pass, it would eventually pass, no matter how long it took. But if you sat down to wait for an infinite amount of time to pass, you would never be finished waiting. The amount of time that had passed would always be finite. That's the difference.
Why could this not be any point on the timeline? You are essentially arguing that time cannot pass at all on an infinite timeline.
That's not my argument. If the universe had existed forever, then it would have existed for an infinite number of years in the past. In order to reach the present, time would be counting down. Infinity. Infinity minus 1. Infinity minus 2. In order to reach the present, it would have to reach Infinity minus Infinity, which brings us back to waiting for an infinite amount of time to pass. Time would be passing, but it would never arrive at the present.
Black swan fallacy.
That would imply that I'm arguing something can't come from nothing simply because that's never happened before. I'm arguing that something can't come from nothing because it's logically absurd. Nothing has no causal power. If you want to claim that something can come from nothing, the burden of proof is on you.
Causing an arc of electricity is an action so a lightning storm does have to be a thinking agent. Do you see the flaw in this argument?
I'll have to think about that.
That is true but unless you are prepared to abandon any argument for christianity specifically then it is pertinent. Are you prepared to forego any such future argument?
Yes, but for the sole reason that I am unlikely to have the time to write such an argument in the near future.
Perhaps once you have addressed my other points we can go down this particular rabbit hole of special pleading but until my points are addressed this is rather besides the point.
A timeless entity does not have problems with infinite amounts of time, and I provided evidence that God is timeless. That isn't special pleading.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I became really busy in real life in the last few days and didn't have time for both forum arguments and a mafia game.
That's simple. "Gods justice " is unjust to anyone with the slightest of morals and who has read about god's justice in practice
That is still subjective. You've merely increased the number of subjective opinions. Do you have any objective basis for disagreeing with God's justice?
Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?
No. I don't have the authority to carry out God's justice. If I were to go to death row and kill some of the inmates, I would be arrested for murder. Even though the legal system has declared them guilty and said they deserve death, I don't have the authority to carry it out. The same is true of me and God's justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'm not digging them up at this time of night, but I'm sure there are records of Stonehenge existing before 1954.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
I don't know if Croc is scum or not, although he is highly inactive. I'm a little more concerned about Bullish. In every game I've played in with him, he's been reasonably active. Not this time. However, the few things he has said are consistent with a town Bullish. I'm not really sure who to suspect right now. Of course, I rarely am sure in DP1. That's why players like Bullish (when active) are useful because they're willing to sus people in DP1 and be aggressive. Even when they're wrong, the discussion provides plenty to analyze.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Very true. Most animes do belong with loud, smelly, dirty animals that consider laundry a delicacy.
Runs away before the rotten fruit starts flying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@skittlez09
Congratulations, and thanks for including me on your list of great people (but mostly the latter!). Seriously, congratulations.
how come u can drink a drink but u cant food a food
My mind is reeling...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
THE ONLY TIME I WILL DEBATE IN A FORMAL SETTING, IS IF THE EQUALLY BIBLE IGNORANT FOOL TRADESECRET FINDS HIS "BIG BOY" PANTS AND GETS THE NERVE TO TALK ABOUT JESUS' TRUE MODUS OPERANDI. UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS TO EMBARRASSED AND SCARED TO ENGAGE THE BROTHER D UPON THIS TOPIC!!! LOL!
A Tradesecret vs. BrotherDThomas debate would be awesome. I would definitely read that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Bad town =/= anti town
Well, if you're going to split it up that way, then I see Intelligence more as bad town than anti-town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That's very true, but anti-town doesn't mean scum. That being said, it is sometimes worthwhile to lynch anti-town elements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is why I say he is scummy, bad logic in general and bandwagoning lynches
Bad logic isn't a scum tell. It's just as common for town to use bad logic as it is for mafia. I'll have to look into the bandwagoning bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Alex Jones is worse than an anonymous source for reliability.
Most definitely. Both are bad, but Alex Jones is worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
"each characters own unique way." It should be character's because it's possessive.
"The DART Bard is extremely well written, comical, and most importantly, gives you the news going on in DART." This bothers me because it violates the principle of parallelism. For instance, the sentence "I like pigs, dogs, and cats" exhibits parallelism because each item in the list is the same type of grammatical construct, whereas "I like pigs, dogs, and petting cats" does not because petting cats isn't a noun like the other items in the list. In your sentence, the items in the list are "well written, comical, and gives you the news". The first two are adjectives, but the last item is a clause. However, I'm not sure if it actually needs rewriting because the way you broke it up with "and most importantly" disguises the lack of parallelism. While it's technically incorrect, most people probably won't notice.
Hey, the "Editor of the DART Bard" isn't just a joke title. I really do have to edit it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll have to think through who I want to lynch tonight. I don't have the time right now.
Created: