Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

15th December 2007 - A Beautiful Disaster
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Secret



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not exactly.

God can perform task A, which is proven using example a. Certain things are possible under a internal rules. There is no reason to expect that example a is the only way in which task A can be performed, therefore task A could hypothetically be executed in such a way as to generate b, which has different internal rules than a. Task B which would be self-contradictory in a could be accomplished in b due to different internal rules. Therefore, God's ability to perform task A allows task (X) to be performed in [internal rules system] (x).
_________________
rm wrote:
the grail is patient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1249
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

*sighs* Do they teach any Aristotle in schools these days?

Let's get real simple. Free will can be defined as "a choice between two or more possibilities." Determinism can be defined as "no choice at all." In other words, Free will (A) is defined as being (A), and Determinism (B) is defined as being (not-A). According to the principle of non-contradiction, there can never be a situation in which A and B are equally true at the same time. Look it up in the Metaphysics.

The problem with your example is that it doesn't take into account the opposite nature of the two methods, namely, that one can't have a choice and not have a choice at the same time. It's basic logic. Your argument hinges on a particular definition of omnipotence, which includes "the possibility to do anything no matter how absurdly stupid and contradictory" and thereby dismisses the principle of non-contradiction. But if you want to maintain such a definition, you should really provide some evidence that your definition is reasonable - something that's highly unlikely since thinkers the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, Leibniz, and others all maintained that you can't do away with non-contradiction. As it stands right now, it's logical gibberish.

Secret wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. God is this thing which we can't possibly define, or disprove, or in fact know anything about?


As for this, perhaps I went too far, too soon. If you haven't read your Aristotle, then you most likely haven't read Kant. Let's just simply say this: since God is not subject to empirical study, any assertions regarding him are tentative and/or functional (as opposed to absolute). Properly speaking, "God is good" is not an absolute statement (since we can't prove it) but a functional one that grounds a system of morality and ethics. Understood?
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pytheus
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojo, If my ideas are such a waste then why are people spending so much time trying to drag the subject on? Dismiss the idea and move on.

I haven't put much thought into it, I spent O maybe 10 secs to come up with the concept at the time of posting. It wasn't a preconceived idea that I had much time to think about. It was a throw away comment that I wasn't expecting people to agree with, but I put it out their just to push the conversation in a different direction since it was on the one track of God made evil. I was playing Devil's advocate as I stated I like to do. My comments weren't to be taken so seriously.

You want my logical reasoning behind my idea. What made me think it? Cause it was the opposite of what was being discussed. Thats it. Nothing more. I tried to maybe expand on it but I really haven't devoted much time to thinking it through. I always thought that to really explore a topic you should see it from both sides of the coin. So by putting the idea out there I hoped to make people explore different options and think of different possibilities.

Sorry if you thought I was trying to make you think for me. I was just trying to make you think. The idea is god didn't create evil cause evil doesn't exist. Its a concept we have come up with cause we are Primitive and thats how our limited minds perceive things. Its an off the wall Idea, but its a start of a new direction. Otherwise if everyone agrees god made evil, well thats the end of the conversation.
Back to top
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1249
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
Sojo, If my ideas are such a waste then why are people spending so much time trying to drag the subject on? Dismiss the idea and move on.


Actually, I think he noted that amidst the mess of your arguments there were some good ideas/questions, and many poor ones. The problem is that you don't differentiate between the two, and apparently can't keep the poor ones out of this thread.

Pytheus wrote:
I haven't put much thought into it, I spent O maybe 10 secs to come up with the concept at the time of posting.


This is the vast majority of your problem right here. You only think about something for 10 seconds and then expect to be taken seriously? Here?

Pytheus wrote:
You want my logical reasoning behind my idea. What made me think it? Cause it was the opposite of what was being discussed. Thats it. Nothing more.


That's not being a Devil's Advocate. That's called being a moron. Rolling Eyes

Pytheus wrote:
The idea is god didn't create evil cause evil doesn't exist.

This is the only thing you've said so far that's remotely interesting, and even that's a stretch considering I'm thinking more of Augustine than of your argument. But lets try it. In your next post, I'd suggest you do the following things (even though I'm pretty sure you won't):

1. Think about what you believe about evil for 15 minutes before you post.
2. Identify the reasons why you don't believe in evil
3. Explain how you reconcile evil's non-existence with the general perception that evil exists
4. Write a first draft of your post.
5. Include proper sentence structure and grammer, please.
6. Ask yourself, "If I was not me, would I understand what I'm saying?" If the answer is "No," start over from no. 1.

That would at least give us a starting point for engaging you in discussion, instead of ridiculing you for your complete lack of argumentative sense. As humorous as it's been, it's getting tiresome.
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pytheus
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This is the only thing you've said so far that's remotely interesting, and even that's a stretch considering I'm thinking more of Augustine than of your argument. But lets try it. In your next post, I'd suggest you do the following things (even though I'm pretty sure you won't):

1. Think about what you believe about evil for 15 minutes before you post.
2. Identify the reasons why you don't believe in evil
3. Explain how you reconcile evil's non-existence with the general perception that evil exists
4. Write a first draft of your post.
5. Include proper sentence structure and grammer, please.
6. Ask yourself, "If I was not me, would I understand what I'm saying?" If the answer is "No," start over from no. 1.

That would at least give us a starting point for engaging you in discussion, instead of ridiculing you for your complete lack of argumentative sense. As humorous as it's been, it's getting tiresome.


Lets not. I don't like doing reports. Its much more fun throwing out comments and watching you guys trip over each other to pick apart everything I say so you can prove how smart you are. Its way too easy to push your buttons. "If I want to be taken seriously"? LOL I don't, its you guys who are being so serious about this. I am being taken seriously! Its easy just to keep pushing those buttons. But your right, its getting tiresome. Its been fun playing with ya. /End topic.
Back to top
Mr_Moustache



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 9123
Location: The thing in itself that is Will

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isnt good and evil a point of perspective

/hasntreadanythingpreviouslywritteninthisthreadatall.
_________________
When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2430

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
Sojo, If my ideas are such a waste then why are people spending so much time trying to drag the subject on? Dismiss the idea and move on.

There are several reasons. The two biggest are probably genuine concern (it would be beneficial for you to learn how to converse without being a dipshit) and simple fun (we enjoy pointing out the flaws in what you are saying in as clever and dramatic a fashion as possible).

If someone says something stupid, but is being nice, it is more of the former reason. If someone says something stupid, and is a dick, it is more of the latter reason. Which response do you think you've gotten?

Pytheus wrote:
I haven't put much thought into it, I spent O maybe 10 secs to come up with the concept at the time of posting. It wasn't a preconceived idea that I had much time to think about. It was a throw away comment that I wasn't expecting people to agree with,

Precisely. This is exactly correct, and exactly why you're being reviled.

Pytheus wrote:
but I put it out their just to push the conversation in a different direction since it was on the one track of God made evil. I was playing Devil's advocate as I stated I like to do. My comments weren't to be taken so seriously.

You are wrong. It was not on the one track of God made evil. Your post was the fifth response to the OP. Not only was there no "one track" yet, but there was already a post (the very first response!) questioning whether God made evil.

Pytheus wrote:
You want my logical reasoning behind my idea. What made me think it? Cause it was the opposite of what was being discussed. Thats it. Nothing more.

Again you are wrong. "Maybe 'good' and 'evil' are human labels and not inherent morals" (a concise way of describing what you're saying - you should give brevity a whirl some time) is not the opposite of God creating evil, because God created man foreknowing that man would create the labels 'good' and 'evil.' Secret pointed this out to you. You had no answer, which is what this is all about.

Pytheus wrote:
I tried to maybe expand on it but I really haven't devoted much time to thinking it through. I always thought that to really explore a topic you should see it from both sides of the coin. So by putting the idea out there I hoped to make people explore different options and think of different possibilities.

Look at this! Reread what you just said! You're trying to explore a topic, yet not devoting any time to thinking it through! Again, this is exactly the point! If you want to think about something, then think about it!

Pytheus wrote:
The idea is god didn't create evil cause evil doesn't exist. Its a concept we have come up with cause we are Primitive and thats how our limited minds perceive things. Its an off the wall Idea, but its a start of a new direction. Otherwise if everyone agrees god made evil, well thats the end of the conversation.

I know what the idea is. It is not "off the wall." It is not new, and it will not magically become new just because you keep saying it is.

I also know what the objection to the idea was, which is something you seem to fail to read every time it is brought up. "YOUR" "IDEA" DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD DIDN'T MAKE EVIL. Do you even read the posts people answer you with?

Pytheus wrote:
Sorry if you thought I was trying to make you think for me. I was just trying to make you think.
Oh, really?
Pytheus, one post later, wrote:
Its much more fun throwing out comments and watching you guys trip over each other to pick apart everything I say so you can prove how smart you are.

You are so full of shit. You are a petty and stupid little man who wants to be praised for rehashing old ideas in new and stupid ways, and you whine like a little bitch when people point out how shallow your thoughts are.

Piss off.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2430

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Secret wrote:
Not exactly.

God can perform task A, which is proven using example a. Certain things are possible under a internal rules. There is no reason to expect that example a is the only way in which task A can be performed, therefore task A could hypothetically be executed in such a way as to generate b, which has different internal rules than a. Task B which would be self-contradictory in a could be accomplished in b due to different internal rules. Therefore, God's ability to perform task A allows task (X) to be performed in [internal rules system] (x).

You have too many undefined variables in there for me to be sure I can parse it correctly. I'm not even quite sure it makes sense.

Also, it really doesn't seem to parallel what you said before in any coherent way.

I suppose it is likeliest that you are joking, but I think it's pretty fair for me to puncture the humour, since you do it to other people. Smile


Vox Raucus wrote:
Aristotle? Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Avicenna, Leibniz!
Vox Raucus wrote:
Aristotle, Kant?

Name-dropping is so gauche.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1249
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Name-dropping is so gauche.


I was simply trying to point out to Secret that if you want to do away with non-contradiction, you'd better have a damn good reason for it because it goes against a long history of philosophy.

But you guessed correctly. I am left-handed.
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pytheus
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You are so full of shit. You are a petty and stupid little man who wants to be praised for rehashing old ideas in new and stupid ways, and you whine like a little bitch when people point out how shallow your thoughts are.

Piss off.


About what I was looking to get. See I stopped caring way before this thread. Great thing about the net is I don't have to give a shit what you think of me. You don't seem to get that I wasn't looking for praise. I was fucking with you for my amusment. Your egos are way to big. I knew you guys couldn't resist going after everything I say so I just decided it was more fun just to play then have a reasonable conversation. Guess you could call it Trolling. So you can kiss my ass.
Back to top
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2430

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
I'm a whiny little bitch retard who pretends I don't care when people demonstrate how mindless I am when they absolutely brutalize me in debate because I don't even know what debate is.

We know.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2430

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vox Raucus wrote:
But you guessed correctly. I am left-handed.

Welcome to SinisterFest!
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Secret



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vox Raucus wrote:
*sighs* Do they teach any Aristotle in schools these days?


Hell, I haven't heard the name in years.

Quote:
Let's get real simple. Free will can be defined as "a choice between two or more possibilities." Determinism can be defined as "no choice at all." In other words, Free will (A) is defined as being (A), and Determinism (B) is defined as being (not-A). According to the principle of non-contradiction, there can never be a situation in which A and B are equally true at the same time. Look it up in the Metaphysics.


This sounds far-fetched, but: YOUR LOGIC IS USELESS HERE.

Existence as we know it has a certain set of rules. Some are more ingrained in us (like logic) than others (like gravity). We can, therefore, imagine a world without gravity, but we find it impossible to visualize a world without logic as we know it. However, in a multiple-existences theory, there is no reason to assume that our particular brand of logic applies, therefore illogical tasks would be possible in an illogical (from our point of view) universe.

On examination, this disqualifies my previous explanation (since God isn't subject to our logic). I'll boil down to my essential statement, then.

There's no reason to assume our logic is the only possible logic.

Quote:
It's basic logic.


See above.

Quote:
...thinkers the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, Leibniz, and others all maintained that you can't do away with non-contradiction.


And what makes them so special, huh?

Quote:
As it stands right now, it's logical gibberish.


Naturally.

Quote:
Let's just simply say this: since God is not subject to empirical study,


Or any study, for that matter. God is a concept, which leads me to my next point.

Quote:
any assertions regarding him are tentative and/or functional (as opposed to absolute). Properly speaking, "God is good" is not an absolute statement (since we can't prove it) but a functional one that grounds a system of morality and ethics. Understood?


The peculiarity of this discussion is that we're not arguing about an object which we define by observations. God has no form - all we can argue about is a popularly believed set of definitions, so I don't see how you can say that 'all assertions regarding [God] are functional'.
_________________
rm wrote:
the grail is patient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9182

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If my ideas are such a waste then why are people spending so much time trying to drag the subject on?


ummmmmmm. trick question?

Forums are places where discussions happen. Fun fact about discussions? That more often than not people will address disagreements more often than agreements. This is not just true of a forum or of the entire internet but is true of any debate or quorum or whatever environment of discussion. People can and will frequently address what they think is wrong about a position that someone is taking.

Quote:
Its much more fun throwing out comments and watching you guys trip over each other to pick apart everything I say so you can prove how smart you are. Its way too easy to push your buttons.


here is an excerpt from SA's " A GUIDE TO GRACEFULLY LOSING AN INTERNET ARGUMENT"

Quote:
3. Tell everyone you are arguing with how little you care about the argument.

This is especially effective as a one-two punch with posting a lot of words. You have proved you are passionate, but men aren't just passionate. They also are stoic, and when there is danger they narrow their eyes and smoke cigarettes. The problem with this aspect of manliness is that narrowing your eyes and smoking cigarettes is very difficult to portray over the internet, although there are probably some emoticons that can help out.
The best alternative then is to follow up your essay on Dragonball Z playing cards with a coda in which you explain that you did not care about all those words you just posted.


Examples:
Bad: I am literally crying right now. There are tears all over my keyboard because I am crying all over it. My keyboard is going to break because I can't stop weeping all over myself and it.

Good: Haha ok, I didn't know you'd react so strongly. It's just the internet. Who cares? I don't. Do you care? You probably do. You're a woman, I am a man. I don't care about things.


4. You were only playing devil's advocate/trying to piss people off/controlling their emotions like the puppet master you are.
You may have lost the war, but great news! You didn't want to win anyway. In fact, you lost intentionally, so by winning they are actually doing exactly what you wanted them to do. They're like tiny ants that you can crush, except they are about the same size as you (maybe on average a little bigger).

Examples:
Bad: I meant every word of this thread. I was trying to get you guys to like me. The only puppet here is me Sad

Good: Wow you guys seem pretty angry at me. I bet you're all fuming and drooling over your keyboards because you have a glandular problem that causes uncontrollable spittle production. This is just where I want you, by the way. I entered gimmick mode the moment I saw all you nerds and I just couldn't help but toy with you a little bit. Ok, enjoy your EVE Online thread boys now that I've caused you all run around with it like you were posting as bulls and I was posting as a piece of red cloth. Why don't you pelibeans malt over that idea for a while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1249
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A troll wrote:
Then what are you expecting in a defense? Can't defend speculation.

Secret wrote:
...logical reasoning?

Secret later wrote:
This sounds far-fetched, but: YOUR LOGIC IS USELESS HERE.


So you're basing your argument on the hypothetical possibility that a contradictory world might exist in an alternate universe, without a single piece of evidence to support it?

The only conclusion I can draw is that your argument is a subtle satirical commentary on the confused and baseless opinion of the aforementioned troll. Well done, sir.

Sojobo wrote:
Welcome to SinisterFest!


Laughing
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group