Best of all possible worlds and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Isn't it amazing how two people, on different sides of the argument, can actually find something upon which they agree?

This is pathetic. 91 argues the technicalities of a premise that AG seems to forget he dismissed in his first post. And wins. Then I, PJW, ask the unanswerable question, and still win.

Amazing. This really is pathetic. But then, as we all know, it is he who speaks last who wins. Well, AG, I heard it said today that Pyrrhus - correct me if my spelling is wrong - is remembered, but his empire was lost. Think about it.

As for me. Well. I love literature. And I love being objective. One of the all-time greatest authors and PHILOSOPHERS is Ayn Rand. I can see how you wouldn't agree with me. But then, she had so many little truisms I could throw at this thread, but won't. Being a selfish person, I don't value throwing words around where they're not needed. I might begin my own thread. A thread with enlightened people such as 91 as a contributor and people like you annoying me into asking my question one more time, the question that I think will probably form the foundation of my whole time on this forum:

Best for whom? And for what?

Answer it and I will return.

91, that's a blatant appeal to authority. If you are so willing to disdain authority that you deride referencing textbooks on definitions, BUT, when deciding the validity of a contested argument, you make a massive personal appeal to authority, then you are just intellectually dishonest. Sobel is a PhD holder as well, and a very smart one. The source I referenced had criticism of the argument, but general acceptance, and even further, considered the premise we were contesting not very reasonable to contest. The one criticism was a criticism that "Ryan" in the comments dealt with by relating rationality back to maximal goodness.

The fact of the matter is that you don't seem to even really understand what you are dealing with, and the only methods you seem to be willing or able to use are just grossly dishonest. I agree with Orwell that you are a lost cause. You are being blatantly dishonest. You are being blatantly incompetent. You show a blatant disregard of the claims made by sources. In short, based upon the evidence, there are only three possible conclusions one can come to about you:
1) You are a troll
2) You are stupid
3) You are grossly intellectually dishonest.

PJW, you don't even understand enough to even claim victory on this. Frankly, your concern has already been addressed sufficiently, if you can't understand how it has been addressed, then that's your problem, not ours. Frankly, you are just a broken record asking the same damn question over and over even though the problem has been nullified already.

You have been caught making a bad argument. You have address nothing of content, just asserting your position with little content. The content you have put forward has been found to be flawed and to not support your position. Fankly I think you are just attempting to google and bluster your was through.



I have given you loads of content from these sources that shows your view to be false. I am merely summarizing. This shows me your desire to simply bluster your way through.



Considering the legitimate criticism I have made of his argument in my last post; this IS an appeal to authority. You have refuted nothing I said and are simply asserting your victory into a vacuum of facts.

What I find amazing is how this conversation can still be going on even though all the major participants have stated that they have given up on the others understanding their points several pages ago.

Leejosepho, why isn't it locked? This is nothing but a flame war now.

Last edited by NobelCynic on 13 Feb 2011, 10:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

It's a personal flaw on my part. I keep on hoping that somebody will understand if I say things the right way, and I am continually rewarded with ....


I compulsively respond, and each time I see more inane BS.

Stubbornness is, evidently, a flaw shared by several Aspies. I will note that my most recent post was the only one in which I stated that I have given up. I previously expressed skepticism over the value of my efforts here, but only now am I actually throwing in the towel.

My personal comprehension of the discussion in this thread might be best described in this kind of manner:


Overall, however, I only see some WP members doing well at "calling each other out" or whatever without actually using flamethrowers ... and offering that kind of opportunity to those who enjoy/employ it seems to me to be one of the reasons the PPR section now exists here on WP. However, anyone at all is welcomed to PM me with any specific rule violations I might have missed.

Yeah this is ridiculous. I was lost by the time it got to page 5. It's just a bunch of tl;dr and either the same points repeated over and over or backtracking to the point where no one even remembers what was said in the previous pages.

@ Orwell: Yeah I guess it's like an itch to scratch. I am pretty stubborn myself and it's only the fact that I have a short attention span which would've made me give up a long time ago.

You would think so, not only from this thread but several others, however I have never heard of stubbornness being associated with Asperger's before.

I am weird even as aspies go. I don't have the sensory issues a lot of us have of my brain overloading because it is taking in too much information. My problem is once information gets into my head it cannot be ejected without resolving it. I simply can't ignore a question because I don't have an answer or the answer would refute my position. Apparently, a lot of aspies don't have that problem.

I've heard of the association between the two. I can't find a source for the claim at the moment though.

I really only have an issue with a lot of talking or loud noises when I am already emotionally disrupted.

In the past I have had resolution issues, however, a lot of that was shot to death when a large emotional shock caused a massive loss in internal coherence. Since then, I have developed in a somewhat different direction.

In any case, I do hope you aren't talking about me when you say "ignore a question" as I have not ignored any question, mostly dismissed questions. I've dismissed questions on the grounds that they are not necessary when one has a sufficient idea of plausible answers. You don't need to find one answer if you think the evidence refutes all plausible answers. This is a different direction than most are used to, but once one understands the rationale, and how it all comes together, it is really reasonable.

Even if you are talking about me, at least I am not like 91, who makes a massive blunder in nearly every post and yet never ever ever ever ever admits to obvious errors in reasoning and judgment, even dismissing the rules of logic, and what people clearly say to make that point.

It is my personal opinion as a Diest, that god is uncaring in our lives, I merely believe he created the universe and let it unfold from there. If this world was truly ideal,and we were without flaw then we ourselves would be god. As far as Atheism goes i believe that to be a lie, we all worship money, we all believe that paper and metal coins with no inherent value have the power to change the world, when in reality we can do that ourselves. Honestly I find it amusing that people think god is compassionate, or that people reject god because he has not fulfilled their own selfish desires.

PJW earnestly attempted to bring new content to the thread. Even a cursory reading of his statements will show you how quickly members of this crowd can dismiss a good point and an unanswerable question. There are those who think unanswerable questions are too easy. Who would doubt their command of logic also?

As to the statements in this thread. Well, both sides (including mine) believe they have a better point than the other. Some people seem more concerned with discharging their strength and proving how smart they think they are, than with seeing the point the other is trying to make.

Let's make a move to common ground. AG, for sake of the argument, make a probabilistic argument and I will discuss the evidential argument from evil. I will even assume it is logically valid and I will not state that you are self-refuting, even when I think you are.