Total posts: 420
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
So my only question at this point is "how do you define synergetic?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure so all of our moral judgements are initially based of cues we receive from biology. Most of these cues relate to harm vs benefit, fair vs unfair, etc. While people have subjective interpretations of these cues, The cues themselves are objective and evolution helps to explain why we disagree sometimes.
It would logically follow that evolution favors survival and group behaviors are beneficial, that having a biological cue that enables group behavior would allow one to reproduce more. It would also follow that since mutations are random, that there wouldn't be a uniform set of cues. So some people might develop cues of different types that maybe are not equally beneficial but are both beneficial enough to maintain a population to some degree.
Since the cues are within our DNA and our opinion doesn't actually change the cue, then this means the cue is objective and since all of our morality comes from this cue it's fair to say that it's objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lernaean
Morality is and adjective and all adjectives require a standard relative to it. Moral Relativism has a dynamic standard. While I think that outside factors change the morality of any given act, I ultimately believe that it has to come from some objective standard. Even if the objective standard chosen is ultimately chosen subjectively. I think most people use the harm/benefit standard axiomatically and I think this is actually what morality is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What if I told you that not everything people call a moral is a moral and if you strip the equivocations to get to the core you end up with objective morality?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Just guessing here, but it could be that sine we have the smaller population that we're driven more towards contention since we're the ones who want to change the societal norm.
Also some Theists don't believe in the internet like The Amish for instance. Obviously this doesn't account for the difference.
Also how much difference is there in number? I've never really stopped to count myself, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A logic zombie is someone who blindly follows logic no matter how ridiculous the conclusions may be.For example, you can't just blindly follow logic into idiotic beliefs like determinism and solipsism. These are obviously intellectual black holes with no utilitarian value whatsoever.A logic zombie is just a person who can't face reality and who won't be honest with themselves.A logic zombie is someone who never takes personal responsibility for their actions and instead blames logic for their moronic and misguided attacks on well established and incontrovertible truth.You can't depend on logic for everything. People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts.
I believe that I can achieve all of the things that you say logic cannot achieve if it is used correctly, what do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Wouldn't that just be a different form of math?1 2D triangle + 1 2D triangle may equal 4 2D triangles of the same size via synergy.3 angles of triangle + 3 angles of triangle synergetically may equal 12 angles of 3D tetra{4}hedron.
Technically, the 1 + 1 = 2 example uses arithmetic.
The math you're doing would be geometry and would have to be formatted into arithmetic first to be used properly.
For instance, how are you adding the Triangles?
Am I adding them by Quantity?
By Total Area?
Am I overlapping them for Hue?
Just putting Triangle + Triangle would basically be a type of math you're making correct?
Also, I'm not sure how 2 triangles equals 4 triangles of the same size. Do you mean the same size as each other? or the Same size as the two previous triangles?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe morality to be subjective if that answers your question.
Can I jump on this?
I think morality comes primarily from evolution
Would you call that subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
The purpose of this topic is to ask this question to me or any other person on the forum.
The point is to get answers to hypothetical questions.
So just fill in X and then y and then the recipient can tell you if they agree or not and why.
x can be multiple things with AND statements between them, but try not to load too many things at once.
I'll start with an open ended question.
If ghosts existed, then would we be able to detect them?
if not, then is it even right to call them existing?
Lets try to keep an open mind on this one because we're dealing with hypotheticals so some things asked will necessarily seem strange at times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You say ego a lot.
It logically follows that you must think about ego a lot.
You must be projecting your insecurity about your own ego onto me. Or you're obsessed with the ideas of egos.
Which is it?
Created:
Posted in:
Your kidding. Yes?"Scales of existence" was in reference to --in context of-- the humans line of text, but we can apply th phrase to any two or more things that the same in some ways and not in others.Scales of sizeScales of weight { mass }Scales of spinScales of colorScales of human species as not same as scales of fish or bears as yes their both on the same scales of being a biologic, but not the same scales of species.My guess is that ego will place a mental block to all of my above just as you do with 99% of what Ive stated.Dude, you really need to learn how to place your ego to side.
Oh that's rich. You act dumbfounded that I didn't think your incoherent doubletalk was obvious and then insult me for my ego. Ironic.
Answer this question.
Do you believe that mustardness is a real existing quality of mustard? when I say exist. I mean actual existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Okay mouthnoiseness.
You're trying to say that you agreed with me that a dictionary is a good starting place. But you're talking about using it as a starting place in a debate and I'm talking about using at a starting point at HOME before the debate. We're not talking about the same thing and you know it and you're just trying to create false agreement to make it think I was arguing for you position all along and that's fallacious.
asd;lfkjsd;fkjsd;flkjasd
You again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You're such a liar. You're not agreeing with me. My suggestion is to do the work at home.
You're the one who parades your dictionary into the arena likes it's The Bible.
You're words are nonsense.
adlfkjasd;lfkjsd;lfkjsadfkjsad;flkjsd
That's my impression of you.
Created:
Posted in:
1 + 1 = 4 synergetically as does 3 + 3 = 12Operation of 1{ 1 }, 2 { 1 1 }, 3{ 1 1 1 } is an orderly sequence and may, or may not be a logical sequence?A logic board{ Mac } = mother board { PC }? Well the spelling is diffferrent and the parts are partially differrent.So there not the same yet their both logical. Kieth{ K }, SM{ S }, M-tard{ M }, Omar{ O } are each logical, and human, yet they are also not equal on all scales of existence.
All of this seems true, but what are you implying?
What does scales of existence mean?
Just because a thought process is logical doesn't mean it exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Good point. I forget which philosopher said it. But there is a theory that logic is meant specifically for us and our reality and so it can be valid in our human realm and anything outside of that realm is not logic and we cannot have knowledge of it nor can the metaphysical knowledge affect us. So by that logic, our logic can be trusted.
I'll have to look up the philosopher. He's a famous one, I'm just bad with names.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
How about you stop hiding behind your dictionary like it's a Bible and just tell me what you believe. Or are you scared to defend your position without a bunch of equivocated words to hide behind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't despise dictionaries. They're a good starting point. IN YOUR PERSONAL TIME. When you're in a debate, you should have your terms looked up already. If you see a term you don't recognize. Look it up. But using a dictionary as a tool to confuse people is not a noble practice.
You say I have a disposition against dictionaries. Not true. But considering you can't have a conversation without one, I could turn it on you and say you have a disposition of taking dictionaries as authorities. You see how that works?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You have a lot of nerve to preach to me about ego. You worship shapes and make no effort to defend it. You just go on about science facts without equating them to your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
First Cause:
This presupposes that nothing existed at some point. We have no evidence of this. If you're going with more probable scenaio. You should presuppose that everything always existed because that's what science tells us speaking in terms of probability. So this is not consistent with "god is more probable."
Big Bang.
So you say it's the best "explanation" I'm going to have to stop you right here. God does not explain anything, it only accounts for it. There's a difference. God is just a definition that has the power to make the big bang. That's not explaining the big bang. To explain the big bang, your insertion of god should be able to tell you exactly how the big bang happened down to the detail and should give you predictive power. God does neither of these things. So God doesn't "explain it" God "accounts" for it. Furthermore, God is not the best "account" Particles are the best "account" Because they have been proven to exist. So in terms of what's more "likely" God is not the one in this case.
I would also like to point out that we have no reason to believe that the big bang was the beginning of time. For all we know, the universe is cyclic. In fact, this is more likely. Before you even bring up heath death, I will remind you that heath death is not even remotely proven and assumes that we live in a closed universe, which we can't prove. If we live in an open universe, then a cyclic universe is possible. So this all seems much more likely than God.
Explanation:
All of the things that have "explanation" are false because you should have put "accounted for" which makes them not likely anymore.
Quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that the particle is irreducibley complex so it had to be made by god? If so, that's not true and that's a very old argument that has been debunked by a lot of people smarter than me.
If you're saying we can get consciousness from particles, then I might be inclined to listen to that argument. But equating it to god in this case is the same as saying "magic"
Mental Construct.
If you're saying that what we see is an abstraction of reality, then I agree. If you're saying that the abstraction IS reality, then I disagree. Either way, how does this make god more likely? Where's the evidence of a universal mind? Maybe a collective mind. Not a universal one.
Moral Realism
Well that is a dubious thing to say. So you want to believe in God because it explains a theory you like? That's called adding evidence Post Hoc and it's fallacious. You don't find the moral system you like and then throw god on it. You find the one that works best with the actual evidence it has. God is not evidence because we don't even have proof. So you can't use god to prove moral realism. Morals are easily accounted for and explained by evolution without adding a god post hoc. So why not just go with evolution?
Math.
None of what you said is true. You're just saying "Math is weird and seems real so I'm going to say it is" That's just you coming to decisions using your feelings. If math is so mysterious and alive. Then how come you can feel it and I can't? Do I call my dreams real? No. I know they're fake. A 4 year old knows they're fake. Why don't you know they're fake?
Death.
This is categorically debunked by science, so I'll just tell you to do more research here. Near death experiences are wildly inconsistent with each other and they're already unreliable from the beginning because we're getting data out of brain that isn't working properly at the moment.
Information Richness.
Even if this was true, it wouldn't point to god. This is just you saying "The world is really complicated, so it had to be god"
Most of your arguments are argument from ignorance fallacies.
I could have thought up better reasons to believe in god than what you came up with.
I suggest you take these ideas and try to disprove them yourself before you believe them. If you're not trying to disprove your own beliefs, then you're just married to them and that's no good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
So your point is someone started a similar topic to this one before?
Okay, I agree. What's your point?
The car was invented into two places at once as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
@TheRealNihilist
The reason for the rule a=a is that it can be replaced by ,'true' --keithprosser
See. He knows what I'm talking about.
When you use propositional logic, A = A will turn into a repeating loop when you try to consolidate it with other logic and that means that it becomes:
A = T. In this case T = true. If you construct what's called a truth table for this. It will show you that A = A is always true. This is why we have the law of Identity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@TheRealNihilist
You called it a descriptive truth, like that diminishes it. I don't see it that way. I think descriptive truths are more sound because we can actually know they're true as opposed to a prescriptive truth which uses a descriptive truth as it's foundation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@TheRealNihilist
You don't get to be skeptical about a bachelor. It's true by definition. That is unhealthy skepticism. If he fits the definition, then it's automatically true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
lol, well I would hope not, you're name is secularmerlin. I was assuming that you may have been an agnostic who finds god probable. I try to leave as many options open until I have information.
for instance. I knew that mustardness was a form of platonists before I even spoke with him because his name basically spelled it out for me. There was no way go wrong there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sweet! Now what? I'd still be arguing with a hard theist at this point, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Interesting thought.
I would probably say that we just live in a world that is 2 inches to the left and we don't know it because we function perfectly by subconsciously adjusting for it. So I guess we more or less end up in the same boat here, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'll explain.
Lets say I have Rmath. It's identical to all maths except that anytime I use the number 6,987. The answer to my equation is always 44.
This means I could sit next to people using Rmath for my entire life thinking that they're using Math and unless they specific number comes up. I have no way of knowing that our maths are different. The person who uses Rmath, just thinks it's math. the special rule never comes up because the Rmath person doesn't think it's controveral and just assumes that how everybody maths.
From here it's really easy to stretch thing example into infinite rules. and not just math rules. Any rules.
Okay, so knowledge depends on the mind. What does that entail? Do you think shapes exist in reality? Sorry if I asked this already, for some reason, I'm suddenly surrounded by platonists, lol.
Well I definitely like "more rational" better than "proven" Sounds like you're at least arguing in good faith. So hit me with your best shot, why is god more likely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, I'll except that as it seems to be functionally the same. I'll let you know if that stop being the case.
So if your expectations for reality are met consistently, which they are, then it doesn't matter if your senses are wrong, because you'll still get the same consistent results. One more example.
Lets say reality is right, but I view everything two inches further to the left than I'm suppose to.
I could mostly do stuff right, but I would miss sometimes.
Eventually I would realize this and I would compensate for it with my thoughts and actions until I reach the point where I don't make precision errors anymore because I know what it feels like to get it right and achieve my goal.
Created:
Posted in:
So you refuse to answer my question while accusing me of not wanting truth? How ironic.
You keep telling me I need a dictionary.
Tell me, can things be proven without a dictionary?
if so, then why do I need it?
I hope you will answer questions and not just ignore me. That would be strange behavior since you're making such a big deal about wanting things to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't think you thought that statement through. Why would I start at a dictionary when I already have tautologies and they're already better. At that point, you're just slowing us down with your book.
Sounds like you're taking my critiques personally. That's a shame. If you can't handle having your beliefs attacked, then it might be because there's a flaw in them. How can you talk about truth seeking when you're married to your ideas?
Tell me, what would it take to prove that shapes don't exist?
Sure.
Abstracts don't hold physical space.
Therefore, they don't exist.
Explain how this is not the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure so answer me this.
without considering whether it's real or fake for second.
Would you say that your reality is consistent?
If yes, then it's true either way because to be consistently wrong would simply be a translation. Reality would be Spanish and your perception would be English.
If I eat a cracker, but it's really a turtle.
Every time I eat a turtle, it will seem like a cracker
It will sustain my body.
IT won't hurt me.
The experience is practical and works the way I intend it. The true state of reality is not important because my experience will always be congruent and therefore measurable.
If you say no, then I don't know how because without consistent reality, true or false, you wouldn't even know I asked you a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
A true philosopher does not carry a dictionary. A dictionary is a book full of popular words. A philosopher carries a book of tautologies.
and mine are plenty.
You critique me by saying I need to learn "definitions"
But you're the one defining things in a confusing way, not me.
I don't have to explain why shapes exist because I don't take such a vacuous axiom.
My beliefs are properly basic. Are yours?
I can get to things by self evidence. Can you?
I don't even need axioms. Do you?
I can articulate myself and work with all of your various definitions without having to appeal to a single book.
A true philosopher fleshes out everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't purposely mean to be insulting. But that all sounds like complete nonsense to me. You're assigning physical qualities to abstracts while also saying they're not physical. You say they complement the physical, which says nothing because "complement" is just an opinion like "these shoes compliment this dress". So you might as well have said "it blah blahs the physical" because that's what I hear when you say that.
You're arriving and contradictions like saying something exists to some but not others. That would mean that existence is subjective and since the existence I define is objective, we're not talking about the same existence.
Your language is unnecessarily confusing when you could easily simplify things by defining things by there traits and qualities instead of making the definition first and shoving into the box post hoc. That's functionally the same as shooting and arrow into a tree and then drawing a bullseye around it.
I agree with you on most of the functional stuff. But the nomenclature you use is awful. Now this might now be your fault, you might come from a worldview that uses confusing language to fallaciously sneak logic in when it's not justified and you might just not realize it. But I have to meet your in coherent definitions with "word fleshing" to get to the bottom and you're not gonna like how the chips after that if you're married to your definitions.
But you're not excepting any fleshing of words at this point. You're clinging to the definitions. Answer me this. What's more important. The definition? or the fact that we can talk to each other coherently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You're not understanding the rule following paradox. It's not math. it's Rmath, which looks almost identical to math except that it was one or more oddly specific rules that one may never detect without directly asking the person. The whole point of the paradox is that we can't know if we're all actually following the same rules and I showed a real world example of this. When you're denying the logical proof of a historically impactful philosopher and you're not wiling to except a real world example, then I don't know what you consider a good standard for proof. Do you want me to show that I can't spit numbers out of my mouth?
Oh, so you just mean a conscious god. Well why didn't you say so? No need to shroud it in mystery. I was gonna get there anyway. Sure, so what's your evidence that such a being is necessary?
Well, technically, it's a change, because that's what change means. It's for a state of affairs to not be the way it just was. But I won't quibble over you definitions. Define it how you like.
So wait, you're a solipsist? You think everything is just nonphysical empty space with no physical reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Yeah, and when I use logic the way you just said, I would end up believing that shapes actually existed. No thanks. I'd rather have a belief that gets me to the truth without having to accept lies to do it. Little better than a presupposition really .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
An assumption is not the same as a presupposition. To assume is to act in the role of. Presuppositions are assumptions without evidence. I have evidence, so it's not a vacuous assumption. It's a logical one.
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty straightforward. Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you how I feel about it. After that, you are then allowed to also ask what I believe as well, but this is not a requirement, just an option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not going to say you're wrong per se. Rather I'm going to make a practical argument.
We know so much about the universe that anything outside of it that anything that escaped it had to surpass the speed of light. Furthermore, things are so far away, they don't affect me directly. At some point, I have to dust off my hands and say "this is all of the knowledge that affects me and functionally speaking, anything that is so far that it can't reach me affects me the same as if It never existed.
Picture two people. Each one on the exact opposite side of a planet. Let's say this planet is so big that the two people can never meet in their life time. Let's say they don't have any form of transportation and can't make it in their lifetime for whatever reason. These two people will never meet and will probably never have a direct effect on each other except maybe a butterfly effect. So from their perspective, it's the same as if they never existed to each other and living their lives under that assumption doesn't hurt them and saves them time from wondering about that which they can never reach.
Furthermore, If the entire observable universe is empty of proof, then I feel quite justified to go 100% and 99.99% would probably be fully justifiable. It makes more sense to assume that everything you've never seen doesn't exist until it reveals itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Well technically it's not math. As the rule following paradox would say, it's Rmath. The point of the paradox is that somebody could have infinitely arbitrary rules about common things that you would never know about, because the rule could be so specific that there is never a case where the rule comes up and therefore, we can not assume that everybody maths the same way.
Also there's a real world example of this. There are people who use left to right before using PEMDAS and never know it's wrong because a lot of times it produces the same answer, so I just gave you a real world example of somebody using alternative math.
Seriously, you should check out that paradox. Even if you disagree with me. It's a good read.
Now to assume your worldview.
In my view, consciousness is fundamental. The empirical world doesn't exist like it appears to. It's just a construct of information-processing. The real world is represented by the things that can't change, like the laws of logic, math, and moral truths.
Could you elaborate on what a fundamental consciousness implies. I know what you're saying when you say it. But I just want to see what you think about consciousness. in general, Are you saying it's the starting point of everything you perceive?
I agree with what you say about the empirical world assuming we're drawing the same conclusions from that statement.
I probably agree with construct assuming you don't mean physical construct. For me, it's an abstraction that is precisely congruent to a slice of reality that it sensed during a given state of affairs.
I agree the real world can't be changed, unless you count motion as change, but I don't think that's what you're trying to say so you can verify that for me.
Now this last part is where I disagree with you. Know I agree these a "things" that can't be changed. But I consider them "abstracts" that can't be changed. There's two kinds of abstracts. Descriptive and prescriptive. When you separated those abstracts earlier, you did it in a smart way. You separated what's called type 2 existences from type 3 and 4 existences. The thing is that all four of those types are different words. type 1 and types 2-4 are unequivocal sets and type 2 is a subset of type 3 and both of them are subsets of type 4. When I say existence I say type 1.
Now if I just assume the truth of this for an internal critique. I don't see too much problem with it as long as you're not treating the abstracts like they're physical things. However, is there a god in this worldview? If not, then what does your worldview posit as a creator. Or do you remain agnostic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I could just make a system of math where 2 + 2 = 99 is true. I just say that 2 = 44.5 and then it's true. So is it real now? Have you ever heard of the rule following paradox? It disproves what you're saying about math, or any abstract that's a rule, value, moral code, etc. You should check it out.
So what makes an abstract consistent with reality?
Well that could be true if you define exist in a certain way, but philosophically speaking, the thing you're defining doesn't take up space in reality, so by my definition, it's not physical. That's the most I can say while still respecting any definition you give.
I would just say it's correct under your definition and that I can adjust my proof for your worldview and it will still work. All you're really doing is moving the categories around. So I can just calibrate my argument to your categories. So go ahead and define the way you see reality for me. I'll temporarily assume your worldview and argue from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
To your first comment.
Okay, well how do you separate a real abstract from a fake one?
What's your standard for separating them?
Can you give me an example of each and why it meets your prescribed standard?
To your second comment.
I agree, but this argument supports me, not you. I'm saying those things are abstracts and don't exist. You're the one saying they do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You're not using detected in the same way I am. You're saying you seen this physical thing called "meaning" and detected it. I'm saying we detect physical things and then prescribe them meaning a priori. What I'm detecting is for example:
Object A is in position x and Object B is in position y.
Object A moves to position z and I can only see this by comparing to the position of Object B.
Everything I just detected was physical objects and then I'm watching them move, the movement does not exist, it is an event. Events don't exist. they're an arbitrary title that we place on a states of affairs.
I ask you, if abstracts are real, then aren't unicorns and Zeus real as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
We detect meaning because we invented it and now we know what it looks like. It doesn't make it physical or existent. Someone pointed at a rock and called it a rock and people watched that person do it and then they all agreed on it. Therefore it was invented. You can say it's detectable, but that doesn't mean anything. For something to exist physically, it has to take up space in reality. Meaning doesn't take up space.
No. Math was invented and then we discovered things about it. We said "this many rocks is 1 rock and this many rocks is 2 rocks. etc."
You're wrong about math being the same structure with different expressions.
If I use a 7 point decimal system, things like the pythagorian therum wouldn't work properly.
I could just use place holders and say that one more than 6 is 10. No my math fits even less.
It's all inventions. Furthermore, none of this disproves my initial claims. If you can't show physical existence of abstracts where they take up space, then you're just making a claim without supporting your BoP on that claim. Since you claim is suppose to be a defeater for my claim, the lack of BoP means it can't debunk my claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry, I missed your comment before.
Well I believe in the philosophy that existence is primarily proven by identity. So to disprove it is to show that the identity cannot be accounted for in the model and therefore doesn't fit. Basically there is no room for it.
This is not the same as "I don't see it therefore doesn't exist"
It's more like "I've looked in every possible spot and it's not there"
It's not an unprecedented, I forget which philosopher first posed it. I'll have to look into that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So the term meta physical means beyond physical. That means that if something can detect it. It's physical, not metaphysical.
Meaning is not a thing but rather a subjective value that people place on things.
If by meaning, you mean interactions, interactions are not things but rather relative states of affairs.
We don't detect abstracts, but rather we see relative states of affairs and we define them with abstracts.
Abstracts are human inventions.
Math works so well because humans played around with different types of math and kept the best one.
The Greeks had a 12 point decimal system which was a different math with different rules and different results and it was replaced by a 10 point decimal system because the previous version was suboptimal.
I could invent a 7 point decimal system if I wanted right now and it would have completely different rules than the 10 point. If abstracts exist, doesn't that mean I just willed it into existence? No. It means I invented a concept.
If math is real, then unicorns are real because they're abstracts. So is Zeus, and Allah, and Santa Claus.
Abstracts are not things.
Our intentions are physical because they're driven by our chemical bodies, the feelings that we get from them are abstracts. Which don't exist unless you're also willing to admit that unicorns and Zeus and Donald Trump exist.
What you're talking about isn't metaphysical. It's what's known as a priori in philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Math is an abstract. It's not metaphysical nor is it any kind of physical.
Sure, so in my analogy, the universe is the pocket and god is the penny and I turned it inside out and it's not there.
Did you even read my evidence? I linked it to you twice. You asked me for evidence and then didn't even acknowledge it when I gave it to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My response to that entire argument is this question.
What does positive evidence for a thing that doesn't exist look like?
Also, I sent you a link in my initial statement that leads to a debate where my 1st round statement is my argument for no gods and you didn't address it.
Here it is again. Round 1 Statement is my argument for no gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
true, but dinosaurs are even harder and we have evidence of them. fossils at least. I would agree that as time goes on, our knowledge of dodo birds will diminished unless it gets stored in a data base and people keep studying it. I also agree that we would not be able to get new knowledge on dodo birds beyond what we get from the fossil records. I'm not even sure if dodo birds were old enough to have fossils or not, but I imagine at the very least, their ancestors did.
Okay
I agree I think saying things like shapes being real is strange. But people believe weird things. I guess it's not completely crazy because things in the mind can seem so real that one might mistake them for being physical.
Created: