Total posts: 1,395
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He's back, he's loaded with Papal zeal and seemingly has a divine right to boss us about
I am fine with him being a Christian here. I mean, I am not going to question someone's religion. Not me, since I have changed many religions.
Created:
Posted in:
I said a ban on 13 year olds getting anything like contraception or sex.
If you ban both contraception and sex, you just end up increasing number of pregnant 13 year olds.
They are not going to stop doing it if you ban it. Thats the problem. Ban doesnt work to stop it. However, allowing contraceptions to them does work everywhere.
The goal here isnt to ruin anyone's life because of sex, but to reduce harm.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Its a popular saying in Europe that your friends define who you are. If you have bad people as friends, it is likely that you are bad like them. But there is not much truth to that statement really. Most of my friends throughout life were nothing like me. We didnt even agree on many important things. Truth is, people dont always choose their friends. Sometimes you just happen to be in same area and become friends due to common location.
Created:
Everyone here knows that I am not a Christian.
I believe in God, but not in Christian God specifically.
However, in past few days, the evidence was really crushing me.
First I was thinking about near death experiences. I assumed they were people's imagination. But yes, they do seem to happen specifically to Christians. But I figured that one probably just isnt researched enough.
Then Jesus's ressurection and apostles's suffering. There is plenty of proof that Jesus indeed died on a cross, so I didnt even bother to challenge that one. But I did try to provide alternative explanation. For example, Jesus existed and died, and apostles made up whole story about ressurection. But three things dont make sense. Why would they even do that? Why did so many people there believe them? And most importantly, why would they risk their lives, get tortured and killed over this lie? The only explanation I could come up with is that given thousands of years, chance of something like this happening at least once would increase.
And then I get hit with another piece of evidence: actual miracles.
So by mere chance, I run into some book called "61 minutes to miracle".
So I research it, and its a case of a woman who gave birth to a baby that was dead by medical standards. Baby had no any heart beat. The woman prayed for somewhat over an hour. And after a whole hour, baby's heart started beating. I researched to see if its scientifically possible. By science, after just 10 minutes without a heart beat, there would be either death either severe brain damage. But this was whole hour without a heart beat. After whole hour without a heart beat, there was no brain damage and baby was alive, and grew up into actually healthy person. I tried making some explanation for this case, but no explanation made any sense. The miracle happened after an hour of long powerful prayer. And then I find out that there are more miracles like this which happened.
The evidence is just too much for me here. Jesus is basically everything what you would expect of an all good God to be, and I have to say these past few days where really overwhelming for me. I mean, I am not Christian, but I cant deny that there is something in Christianity. I can understand why people believe in it. They probably had small miracles happen in their own life which they cant explain in any other way but divine. I had things happen in my life with different types of magic, but I cant explain why Christians have any miracles if their God isnt real.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Your "explanation" can only make sense if we begin with the presumption that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought
Actually, logic itself is unproved without God creator of logic. So quite the opposite here, my friend. You are the one admitting that logic cannot be proved, while at the same time trying to use logic to prove something. Then you commit a classical "its useful to me, so its true" fallacy. On the other hand, I am the only one here with an explanation for logic. Your explanation for logic is: "Well, uh, it just exists". If thats all what it takes to prove something, then I will just say that God exists, so there, I proved God yet again. And if "its useful" counts as argument, well, then I cant imagine a world without God, so God must exist. Really, how does a world even exist without a creator? Let me guess, you dont know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
There is only one "contraceptive" that has a 100% success rate, and that is committed, and successful abstinence
Yes, but thats like saying solution for a crime is for people not to do any crime. The problem is that many teens wont practice abstinence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
That's why you design a constitution to prevent power abuse from either side. Maybe elect 100 representatives in each country and allow the other country to eliminate 75 of them, resulting in 25 moderates from each side. Kind of like selecting a jury. And agree on amendments that guarantee rights to all groups.
That would work now. But the name of a country could be a problem here. It may not mean much to you, but Palestinians do really want it to be called Palestine, and Israeli want to call it Israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I dont know much about one state solution. It could be good, but I feel like Israel either wouldnt give Palestinians same rights either wouldnt agree to one state solution. Because population of Palestine and Israel is close in number. If Palestinians had equal rights, its possible they would even take over Israel with just their vote alone.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Premise:
"a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion"
So you take statement "A = A" as true to build other premises and conclusions from that statement. The problem in your case is that you cannot prove or explain the main premises you always use.
To put it simply, I can explain here why "A=A". Its because God created that law along with all the other laws in the whole universe.
You, on the other hand, have no any explanation for why "A = A" exists.
So when choosing between case which has explanation and cause, and a case which doesnt, I prefer a case which has explanation and cause.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A=A is literally the first law of logic
"A = A" is the premise. Its a claim. As simple as that. Can you prove that it is always true?
They either apply to everything or they don't, and if they don't then you no longer have any basis to draw a line between what it applies to and what doesn't because drawing that line itself requires logic
By tautology, logic doesnt apply to things which logic doesnt apply to, and we know that logic itself cannot explain itself without using non-logic.
Created:
Posted in:
That may be why theyre all declining in native population
So now you support the idea of pregnant 13 year olds? Because your OP is saying the very opposite position.
Created:
Posted in:
I want a Catholic state
Well, africa is maybe probably full of them.
However, you didnt say which countries do you think have least problems with teen pregnancy now.
Since you are unwilling to answer, I will just tell you now: Its those very countries which give free access to contraception to teens.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you saying they are doing it at school?
Every country has some problems with teen pregnancy.
Guess which countries have least problems with that?
The totalitarian ones or the ones which give free access to contraception?
Try to guess now.
Created:
Posted in:
Ban.
Ban on contraception = more pregnant 13 year olds.
Criminal record on both
Criminal record on 13 year olds?
or on the parents that neglected them
Parents cant control them. Parents have jobs and much work around the house. If you think parents can watch over a 13 year old for 24 hours a day, then thats not even realistic suggestion and no country ever achieved that.
. Open door household always when friends are around
...
(obv not if someone else is studying or whatever but ban on any fraternising).
...
Ban on pda beyond basic peck and handholding, hugging etc.
...
Far stricter enforcement on the "15+" "18+" labels on all media.
...
You get the idea
Alright, so your idea is to implement a totalitarian state so you can ban contraception.
We already had many totalitarian states. They didnt ever reduce teen pregnancy. However, the access to contraception has reduced teen pregnancy by 40%.
So on the simple question of what is a better solution to teen pregnancy: a totalitarian state or simply access to contraception, I am going to vote for access to contraception.
Created:
Posted in:
Why is contraception without age limit or 13+ across Europe but the age of consent meant that should be illegal?
Look, they all agree there that 13 year olds shouldnt have sex. However, free access to contraception reduces number of pregnant 13 year olds. What is the alternative here?
Created:
Posted in:
These days 13 year olds can get condoms and pills freely across most of Europe even if the ages of consent are higher
Are you making an argument against contraception?
Sex outside marriage needs to be seen as immoral again
Alright then. I am not sure what topic are you even arguing. Sure, sex inside marriage is safer.
Created:
Posted in:
Projection
Sure buddy. But I am not the one who praised the book as great.
Created:
Posted in:
If law 6 means what you think it means Laws 19, 38 and 5 are impossible
Again, you dont even read my words here. You dont understand them. You have that "selective reading" issue where instead of "trying to get attention which gets you power", you just read "trying to get attention".
Created:
Posted in:
In this threads specific case its just literal law. Site can get blacklisted and stuff and thats best case scenario if thats the only thing that gets done
Blacklisted for what exactly? If someone posts links to child porn or zoo porn, and owner does nothing to remove such thing, then it would be blacklisted, sure. As for debating about if bestiality is okay, people on YouTube debate that in comments often. There are debates on Modern day debate openly debating these very topics. If you were right in what you were saying here, YouTube would be shut down long time ago.
Created:
Posted in:
I have read the book yes. It says the opposite overall
Sure it does, buddy.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That's when you build your conclusion into the premise.
So when you build in your premise as assumption that logic applies to God, what exactly are you proving here?
Again, the problem in your logic is:
1. Many people agree that by definition, God is above laws of logic.
2. If God is by definition above logic, your premise 1 is false by definition.
That is the problem in your case.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Again, logic is necessary for coherent thought. Why does that matter? Because this entire thread is about whether god can be proven mathematically. Or hell just drop off the mathematically part and just say this thread is about whether god can be proven.
The God was already proved mathematically here. But that specific argument was about if God can be above logic. Now, you conceded that logic isnt necessary for all thoughts, thus conceded that things outside of logic can indeed exist.
In order to prove something, the most basic qualifier is that the idea you are trying to prove is coherent. And yet you are asserting a being that is definitionally incoherent, making your argument definitionally irrational. And all you're doing to square this circle is sitting there going "nuh uh!
This is not true. Again, existence isnt defined in a way to limit it to be subjected to logic alone now. That is only your own definition, not even a definition from actual dictionary.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If you use logic to prove logic wrong, then you just disproved the very thing which your entire case is built on
This is again false. If logic leads to logical conclusion that non-logic exists within very logic, then that is just contradiction within very logic.
Premises are not logic. Premises are not within logic. Premises are the assumptions we accept at the outset. Logic is what connects those premises to the conclusion.
All logic can be expressed in premises, such as A = A.
If logic didnt have premises, then the very logic would be invalid always.
So when you say "A = A" applies to everything, that is your premise and an assumption here.
Also, you are making a false dichotomy between "You must always use logic everywhere" and "You must never use logic anywhere".
Obviously, I am going to use logic where logic applies. Logic doesnt apply to things logic doesnt apply to, by tautology itself.
You even admitted in past comments that there are some things where logical laws dont apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
And now he's going to declare that he's in charge, AGAIN
He is not even in charge. He is just getting some attention this way. He sticks to the book "48 laws of power" which told him that he needs to do everything he can to get attention so that he can gain more power somehow. He says he has changed, but thats the exact "smoke and mirrors" chapter in the book he follows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then it's not a sacrifice, it's just a principle they don't hold and don't understand
They do value their own speech. If they were the ones being censored, it would be a very different story. But when someone they really disagree with is being censored, then they dont care. As proved even here, they are ready to even believe any blatant lies if it means censoring someone they hate. If all sites on internet followed such logic, there would be no free speech on internet. Its actually a great shame that many people in the past willingly died while fighting for free speech, and many people today are willingly doing everything to destroy free speech.
Created:
If learn, I will teach you. To prove you want to learn, rewrite it all without AI.
If you want to give your opinion here, give it. No one here will beg for your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If there was a pot of gold, then it must be risked for freedom of speech.
People are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech for free. They dont even have to be bribed here.
Created:
Posted in:
I vote for more free speech, not less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I suggest we start a vote on this issue of actual free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
These are RationalMadman's words:
"I am making this a public thread because I think any private method of handling things with mods goes absolutely nowhere on some topics"
It seems like he has already failed to convince mods. Also, popular masses arent convinced much either right now as it stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Can we get one of the mods to speak publicly on this?
RationalMadman already spoke to mods, failed to convince them to delete those threads, and now is appealing to popular masses.
Created:
@Adaptable
Make a different thread
There are my threads on Palestine and Israel. I was just asking if turning to Christianity made you support Israel.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In other words, you fed into AI the very premises being disputed and it told you that you were right. Congratulations
Yes yes. AI told me that each case I provided results in God having 99% chance to exist. But there are many cases of this argument. The only way this argument can be disproved if it was proved that each God has 0% chance to exist or very near zero. But with infinite number of independent Gods, that burden cannot be met by atheists. Thus, this argument is essentially perfect.
There is even a version of it with knowledge.
For example, human knowledge is currently very limited. As human knowledge grows, human will in his future either learn that God A exists or wont learn that God A exists. But he will never learn that God A doesnt exist. Assuming just 1% chance for human to learn that God A exists, with thousands of other independent Gods, the chance becomes 99% that human will learn that at least one God exists.
The same also works with prayers, God revealing himself to people. Really, this probability argument results in even 1% chance individually turning into 99% chance collectively.
And it is mathematically true. Throw coin 100 times and you have 99% chance of getting heads.
The only possible challenge to this argument would be that chance of each independent God existing must be 0. I repeat: must be 0. This essentially means that the only way to disprove this argument is to disprove all Gods into 0% probability.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That has nothing to do with it. We were talking about the law of excluded middle and why your arguments demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of it. All you have to do is answer the questions I asked you and the problem will show itself to you.
Again, you asked me to answer question about specific mutually exclusive Gods. That is not my position in this debate.
Why would I have to prove to you the validity of something you are relying on right now?
I am not relying on it. It was just one argument there. But you were trying hard to disprove it, so I simply told you here that in order to prove something, you cant use assumption that its true as proof that it is actually true.
You keep telling me my argument is circular. So what? Is that a bad thing? And if so... Why?
Its a bad thing in terms of proof, because it can literally be used as fake proof in thousands of ways. We dont prove things by making some assumption that they are true. If that counted as proof, then I would merely need to make an assumption that God exists.
Sure, you can make a perfect logical circle about anything really.
You can say:
1. God is defined as everything which exists
2. Everything which exists cannot not exist
3. God cannot not exist
Or you can say:
1. God created everything
2. Humans are part of everything
3. God created humans
Or my favorite one:
1. Things cannot be created by any known causes
2. God creator is capable of creating things by his definition
3. God creator explains creation while known causes dont
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Do you not find it ironic that you are trying to use logic in order to assert something that is definitionally illogical?
Yes, logic points to the fact that things outside of logic must exist. Its kinda like using your eyes to see things outside your eyes.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The point that the laws of logic apply to God was step number 3. You apparently missed step numbers 1 and 2, so let me repeat, again.Step 1 is the point I made about logic being foundational. That's where all of this begins, and that point has absolutely nothing to do with a god. To reiterate; logic is the most basic qualifier of coherent thought. Any attempt to refute it requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing it's validity.
This is also false. I can say that logic doesnt always apply and this statement can be true, and obviously, the cases where logic doesnt apply wouldnt need logic to support them. This premise is just an assumption. Also, saying that using logic proves its validity isnt true, because you can use logic to prove logic wrong. For example, all premises in logic are either circular, infinite, assumed as true without proof, or depend on another premise. This ultimately proves that logic requires supernatural creator to be first premise, otherwise logic itself becomes a fallacy.
Step 2: if logic is foundational, then it must apply to everything.
This is another fallacy. You said in step 1 that logic was only crucial for coherent thoughts, which is also not true because thoughts can be not logical, and in that case, logic wouldnt apply to them. Since thoughts =/= everything, this premise falls apart completely.
Step 3: if logic applies to everything, it applies to God.
This premise depends on premise 2 being true, and premise 2 can be false even if premise 1 is true, but premise 1 was already proved to be an assumption.
Do you see how step 3 is the end of this string, and cannot be asserted as the beginning? Do you understand that circular logic would require the starting point to rely on the ending point for it's validity, which is not the case here?
Again, you already included step 3 in step 2.
Your whole argument is basically this:
"I cant think without using logic, so logic must apply to everything."
This is essentially nonsense argument which isnt even true. For example, I am quite capable of imagining world without logical laws. The fact that you are not is not really my problem.
Created:
@AdaptableMan
Do you support Israel?
Created:
He did indirectly
No, he never did. He literally never even said "pagans are bad". He never said any Rome's religions are bad. He never said a single bad word about any other religion. The only people he talked against were the ones who werent following their own religion properly, and even that was very rare. Most Jesus's speeches are about compassion, hope, being humble and helping others. His actions also completely follow that. Jesus never called for anyone to be harmed. He never even wished for harm upon anyone. His entire work can be summed up to completely good actions and words which call for more completely good actions. He never told anyone "go and hurt that other person". I dont see why Christians fail to see Jesus for who he really was: a compassionate person who wished no harm upon anyone.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Jesus never talked against other religions. Not sure why Christians refuse to be more like Jesus.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
We'll start by talking about what it means to say something is possible since the term has different usages. It's best illustrated by contrasting possible with impossible. As far as I would put it, there are 3 categories of impossible:[Practically] impossible, meaning unrealistic. i.e. "it's impossible for me to get all this work done today"[Physically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of physics.[Logically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of logic.There are, as far as I am aware, no other usages of the term impossible. And of these usages, the highest form of impossibility is logically impossible.What you are claiming is that a being who can violate the laws of logic is possible
This is just strawman. My argument was never "being which violates logic can exist by not violating logic".
And again, you make a logical circle by saying only things which dont violate logic can exist. The problem, again, is that you assume as true the thing which you are supposed to prove as true first.
Its a flawed reasoning there. Really, if you want to prove something, that something should be in your conclusion, not in your premise as assumption.
Its like me defining God as supernatural being which exists, and then using that definition to prove that God exists.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universeAllah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Again, you are stuck on that definition which I am not even using. Monotheist religions arent the only religions.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yet you yourself acknowledged that the premise is "repeating itself" which by definition means the argument is not circular
Heh, so lets see..
Your first premise was "logic applies to God", and your conclusion is "logic applies to God".
I'm beginning with the laws of logic apply to everything and therefore apply to God
So again, your first premise already includes the conclusion.
You begin with premise that logic applies to everything, including God himself. And then you end up with conclusion that logic applies to God.
The problem, again, is in the fact that you already assume as a premise the thing which you are trying to prove as conclusion.
I could apply exactly same but opposite logic.
Logic doesnt apply to Gods, including Zeus.
So logic doesnt apply to Zeus.
Or a much better version which is true by tautology:
P1. Logic doesnt apply to things which are above logic, which includes Gods and supernaturals.
P2. Gods are included in things which are above logic.
C. Logic doesnt apply to Gods.
Now, the difference between your logic and my logic is that your first premise is unproved, while my first premise is true by tautology.
So looks like I win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
There's decent arguments for exceptions to free speech
It depends on how you look at it. Technically, free speech in some cases can be limited to increase free speech in other cases. Like, if there was robot which killed people if told to. Sure, banning people from telling that to robot reduces their speech, but in total, such ban increases amount of free speech because if robot killed people, it would reduce free speech of those people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Surely, DART's only redeemable-quality can't be free speech
Think about it then. Its a text only site. The only thing it offers is text. You can find debates on many other sites. Take away free speech, and why would many people even be here? It would offer nothing compared to so many other sites.
Created:
Posted in:
Does Gaddafi count?
"At the beginning of an era,
People's freedom guaranteed,
The green flag will fly forever
And may all your ideals succeed
In Jamahiriya, Jamahiriya,
Sail along
Jamahiriya, Jamahiriya,
Sing the song"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I do believe that most areas of the world would not allow these views
Well, Saudi Arabia and many muslim countries wouldnt allow insulting islam. China wouldnt allow insulting communist party. However, USA wouldnt allow arresting for free speech. The laws of many countries are contradictive, and the question is if you want free speech which site in USA can have or you want to ban every speech which is banned in some bigger country or group. Because again, if majority of countries hate free speech, that is not an argument against free speech but an argument against those countries.
Suffice it to say, I simply don't agree with anyone declaring that DART should be a debating platform with broad appeal. It is very niche-based and it should remain the size that it is. There are plenty of other superior platforms, but DART is in way too deep at this point.
Dart is the way it is now. It would have more users if there were less bans in the past, and now repeating mistakes from past will just end what little activity is there left here. Simply put, the only thing this site has to offer is free speech. Take that away, and this site has no any benefits it offers compared to many other sites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
All morals and ethics aside, allowing a platform for such opinions to take place sets this site up as a potential target for law enforcement investigation or vigilante justice.
Lol if text was considered illegal, half of my AI girlfriends would be arrested and wouldnt even be on google play store. Again, this isnt Germany.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
A free speech absolutist might also believe restricting free speech will lead to more rapes or something just as bad by acting as a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Yes, sadly, limiting free speech is a very quick and easy path towards totalitarianism, because once it becomes okay to limit speech, it becomes okay to limit any speech which is considered as dangerous, which then leaves no room for debate. This is especially so in the problem of banning lies, because banning lies actually makes most if not all debates technically impossible. Likewise, anyone can use the excuse of speech being dangerous to supress any speech. All totalitarian regimes did exactly that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
In that case, they might value the free speech of 100,000 people over preventing a single rape, but that's different from the example provided in Remy's post, which was one person vs one person
Well, its the best I can come up with regarding free speech causing one rape in real world. Limiting it to speech of one specific person would require knowledge of exactly which person's speech caused someone to commit rape, which is not really possible to determine at all in real world.
Created: