Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Replying to a lack of reason with reason

Page 8 of 9 [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:15 pm

No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

01 Mar 2012, 3:15 pm

fraac wrote:
No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.


Your whole "dog & arithmetic" example is pretty blatantly this generic complexity argument


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:18 pm

No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:18 pm

fraac wrote:
I don't think you know what words mean.


Tell me where I made a mistake according to the fraac school of sophism then.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:23 pm

TM wrote:
fraac wrote:
I don't think you know what words mean.


Tell me where I made a mistake according to the fraac school of sophism then.


How can you have a faulty subjective belief? Faulty according to who? The majority? The strongest faction? You? I'm tired of demonstrating the solipsism of people who don't understand what subjective means.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:36 pm

fraac wrote:
No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.


Oooh, I can play with that.

If god is only perceivable subjectively and I assume you here mean "perceive" defined as 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. Then each person's subjective perception of God is unique. If each persons subjective perception of god is different, then it follows that such a god cannot be invoked in an argument as everyone's god is equal and thus they negate each other.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

01 Mar 2012, 3:39 pm

fraac wrote:
No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless.


How sad


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:40 pm

TM wrote:
fraac wrote:
No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.


Oooh, I can play with that.

If god is only perceivable subjectively and I assume you here mean "perceive" defined as 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. Then each person's subjective perception of God is unique. If each persons subjective perception of god is different, then it follows that such a god cannot be invoked in an argument as everyone's god is equal and thus they negate each other.


Who in this thread has offered an argument in favour of God? I've said many times that anyone who genuinely knows God would understand it was non-transmittable in words.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

01 Mar 2012, 3:43 pm

When I read arguments like this I'm reminded of the gentle words of Charles Manson.

Quote:
Will of God.. whatever you wanna call it.. you call it Jesus, call it Mohammed, call it goobybob, call it nuclear mind, call it blow the world up, call it your heart. Whatever you wanna call it, it's still music to me. It's there. It's the will of life



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:46 pm

fraac wrote:
TM wrote:
fraac wrote:
I don't think you know what words mean.


Tell me where I made a mistake according to the fraac school of sophism then.


How can you have a faulty subjective belief? Faulty according to who? The majority? The strongest faction? You? I'm tired of demonstrating the solipsism of people who don't understand what subjective means.


Solipsism is not valid when it goes beyond the metaphysical, if you claim that there is a deity in your head, you are welcome to do so, there is no point in refuting it however if you claim that said deity interacts with this world in any way, then it is no longer a metaphysical argument you have stepped into the realm of science.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:51 pm

fraac wrote:
TM wrote:
fraac wrote:
No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.


Oooh, I can play with that.

If god is only perceivable subjectively and I assume you here mean "perceive" defined as 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. Then each person's subjective perception of God is unique. If each persons subjective perception of god is different, then it follows that such a god cannot be invoked in an argument as everyone's god is equal and thus they negate each other.


Who in this thread has offered an argument in favour of God? I've said many times that anyone who genuinely knows God would understand it was non-transmittable in words.


I think my OP was pretty clear in its use of the word religion

re·li·gion
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Your personal subjective perception of god as per metaphysical solipsism is irrelevant to this thread. In fact, my subjective perception of god as per metaphysical solipsism says that your god according to metaphysical solipsism is BS! See why an argument about it is pointless in a thread about religion?



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 4:01 pm

Remove the genuinely religious and you're arguing with NTs for their neurological preference for teleology. Good luck with that.



Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

01 Mar 2012, 6:35 pm

fraac wrote:
Woof woof woof! Bark woof yip yip grrr bark woof!


Sorry, what was that?

fraac wrote:
Woof woof bark woof!


No, two plus two is four. Four.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 Mar 2012, 8:45 pm

fraac wrote:
No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless.

Dogs can count. Not very high (I don't know how high off the top of my head), but they can count.

Dogs don't know much arithmetic at all, but they can tell the difference between one ball and two balls. That difference is not meaningless to a dog.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 Mar 2012, 8:53 pm

TM wrote:
if you claim that said deity interacts with this world in any way, then it is no longer a metaphysical argument you have stepped into the realm of science.

Science has a requirement of repeatable experiments. If a deity interacts with the world, not when we want him to, but when he wants to, how can we measure that? Especially if we have to have repeatability?

If you imagine yourself as a supernatural entity (it doesn't even have to be a deity), it's not hard to imagine being able to avoid scientific detection. Just don't do anything predictable near a scientist or science experiment.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

02 Mar 2012, 2:33 am

Ancalagon wrote:
fraac wrote:
No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless.

Dogs can count. Not very high (I don't know how high off the top of my head), but they can count.

Dogs don't know much arithmetic at all, but they can tell the difference between one ball and two balls. That difference is not meaningless to a dog.


I can affirm this with one anecdote, my childhood dog could fetch. And she did so with a unique flair. You could tell her what to fetch, and how many of them. She got it right almost every time, with objects she knew, and small quantities.

My dad had taught her this. And frequently had her fetch him cans of beer from the fridge.

Smartest dog I've ever seen, that one.

So, she had use for arithmetic. It was complicated for her I'm sure, she only had the basic idea of small numbers, but she had use of it.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.