It seems to me that you are proposing that it is possible and desirable to simultaneously do two things:
1. get the answers that one needs
and
2. test the person giving one the answers.
In my experience, this doesn't work.
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
It seems to me that you are proposing that it is possible and desirable to simultaneously do two things:
1. get the answers that one needs
and
2. test the person giving one the answers.
In my experience, this doesn't work.
I think you are mything the point
I'm not proposing testing the person. In my view there is no need, only the information they give, until such time you are satisfied with the answers.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here?
You're going to have to explain and clarify what you mean.
What does "mything" mean? Turning something into a myth??
Which point do you think I am "mything"?
And why do you think this?
lightgigantic
And you seem to be doing everything you can to obscure it, as usual.
wynn
Actually he is only putting the responsibility to be clear on the one who(famously)does his best to obscure the meaning of his statements so the discussion can be conducted at all. And that responsibility to be clear is exclusively on the one making the statement.
Grumpy
And you seem to be doing everything you can to obscure it, as usual.
wynn
Actually he is only putting the responsibility to be clear on the one who(famously)does his best to obscure the meaning of his statements so the discussion can be conducted at all. And that responsibility to be clear is exclusively on the one making the statement.
Grumpy
In that case, it was probably in your capacity to figure out the answers on your own to begin with, no need to inquire from another person.
So if we drive this a bit further, then we can say that per your view, existence might just as well do without everything. That living beings, black holes, stars, planets, atoms, everything can be taken away, but existence remains.
lightgigantic
And you seem to be doing everything you can to obscure it, as usual.
wynn
Actually he is only putting the responsibility to be clear on the one who(famously)does his best to obscure the meaning of his statements so the discussion can be conducted at all. And that responsibility to be clear is exclusively on the one making the statement.
Grumpy
All in due time, my son, all in due time.
By "testing the information" I do mean with the other person. You test it by asking questions - not about the person (so not testing the person) but about the information you've been given - which is especially the case if you are not clear as to what the information means.
Then you test your understanding by posing questions, counter arguments - again you're not testing the person, you're testing the information and your understanding of it, and why it may be information one struggles to accept within the other information they work from.
Even without anything existing, existence might remain as a potential. Just as it might be seen to prior to the Big Bang, for example.
One could also see existence as being an infinite set, and to remove any finite elements of that set still leaves an infinite set.
I'm expecting a ban for this but, I can't help myself. LG and Wynn please help me understand why you are both such fucking morons.
You spew absolute nonsense that you MUST, you MUST know is complete horseshit. You phrase things with language that is awkward and unnecessary and it seems you are simply TRYING to SOUND intelligent and/or "deep". Are you surrounded by idiots in real life? Are you able to talk such horseshit to those around you that it's become the norm? Do you think that you what you're saying is packaged "smartly" so the contents are irrelevant? Your smug garbage doesn't fool many around here it seems. Why can't you just be HONEST for once? People that conduct themselves the way you do are pathelogical liars, I think... But, then I just don't know. I can't relate or understand the motivation. I lack the ability to come up with a reasonable theory for why you are so full of shit. All I keep arriving at, is that you're a couple of fucking idiots....
Talk to you in a few days....
You spew absolute nonsense that you MUST, you MUST know is complete horseshit. You phrase things with language that is awkward and unnecessary and it seems you are simply TRYING to SOUND intelligent and/or "deep". Are you surrounded by idiots in real life? Are you able to talk such horseshit to those around you that it's become the norm? Do you think that you what you're saying is packaged "smartly" so the contents are irrelevant? Your smug garbage doesn't fool many around here it seems. Why can't you just be HONEST for once? People that conduct themselves the way you do are pathelogical liars, I think... But, then I just don't know. I can't relate or understand the motivation. I lack the ability to come up with a reasonable theory for why you are so full of shit. All I keep arriving at, is that you're a couple of fucking idiots....
Talk to you in a few days....
But the person tells you, in reply to your question - "Go do x, don't do y" - and you don't comply.
What's the use of your pursuing communication with them then?
Can you please complete the following sentences:
When I read posts by Wynn or Lightgigantic, I feel _____________ .
I think I feel this ______________ because _____________ .
Posts by Wynn or Lightgigantic lead me to think that this world is _______________.
After I have read posts by Wynn or Lightgigantic, I want to _____________ myself and ________________ the people whom I love dearly.
such a colourful response indicates we must have said something to rouse you from your ignorance
Last edited:
Indulging in ad homs rarely renders an argument more coherentwynn
Grandpa maybe, son, no. And getting clear, concise replie from you seems more difficult than pulling teeth without anasthetic. With LG it is just not possible. I don't think his brain works that way(if it works at all.
Grumpy
:shrug:
That's the point you are missing/mything
IOW if you can't discuss the nature of the core potential of existence you have a practically identical argument to the "vague, irrational explanations of god" you spend a good deal of your time trying to debunk ... particularly when you go on about which things/values are not essential
:shrug:
It's not always (actually rarely) a matter of following their instructions but rather of understanding how those instructions are supposed to lead to the conclusion they suggest.
If you ask me how one can reach the moon unaided, and I tell you that the first step is to walk off a 200-ft cliff... would you comply? Or would you seek to understand how the instruction relates to / leads to the conclusion?
And then, when one understands the links between instructions and conclusion, it would be a question of whether one wishes to achieve the conclusion or not.
But if the person can not even explain the relationship to my satisfaction, why would I comply?
So one pushes for explanation. One points out to the person why they either do not understand or do not accept the link being explained. And discussion can hopefully continue (obfuscation allowing).
Eventually either the argument is accepted (by one side or the other) or an impasse is reached - and then it might be a matter of what the root cause of the impasse is, to possibly get a better understanding etc.
And what exactly am I missing about this point?
And why are you spelling it "mything"?
And if you can't eat twelve bananas while holding your breath underwater...?
IOW where is the relevance of this? If you wish to accuse me of not discussing something, or of not being able to discuss something, please provide evidence where I have refused to do so or been unable to do so.
Otherwise you'll need to provide some clarity as to what you are trying to say.
I put it in bold for you and even explained why
Then I guess I better not indulge myself in explaining why one can't eat apples under water for a start ....
My point is that your discussions about what core components reality can and cannot house and which are essential/non-essential are mysterious, unexplained and not evidenced ... which tends to be the three big draw cards you use in debunking your estimations of theistic claims (that the mything the point)
If you can't establish the core principle of reality you can't discuss its existence sans "anything anyone cares to mention" ... thats the missing the point part
Someone once said that the difference between a philosopher and a religious man is that a philosopher deals in expendable theories, while a religious man sets his life on the line.
The thing is - I wouldn't ask you (or anyone else) that to begin with.
When you think about it - which questions are really worth asking? Very few.
But this suggests that you're not clear about what you want or need.
You're like someone who wanders into a store, with too much money on his hands, and then seeks to be convinced of the usefulness of this or that item so that he can purchase it.
I suppose that for some people, this is just the situation they are in ...