You intend to stop building your strawmen?
Why do we need a God?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
According to Sarkus the problem with Africa is simply isolated to the living entities residing there. If you remove them from Africa, Africa has no problems.
Genius, eh?
Kind of like this solution for pedophilia
Let's see...You intend to stop building your strawmen?
I guess not. :shrug:
Sarkus : .... if a universe devoid of life has no "problems" that you can identify then the issue is clearly NOT with material existence per se (a universe devoid of life IS part of material existence) but with one element of material existence.
and
.... if an africa devoid of life has no "problems" that you can identify then the issue is clearly NOT with africa per se (africa devoid of life IS part of afrcia) but with one element of africa.
or even better
....if pedophiles devoid of access to children have no "problems" that you can identify then the issue is clearly NOT with pedophiles per se (a pedophile without access to children IS still a pedophile) but with one element of pedophilia.
If one of them is a strawman they are all strawmen I'm afraid ....
Last edited:
The straw man you create is not in the individual logic of the statements (not withstanding the inaccuracy of the comparison with the last example) but in that you attempt to use the argument to suggest that a solution I am proposing is the removal of people from Africa. i.e. you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument.
In other words a straw man argument.
Perhaps it is your lack of understanding of what a straw man argument is that explains your propensity to produce them?
In other words a straw man argument.
Perhaps it is your lack of understanding of what a straw man argument is that explains your propensity to produce them?
Actually, he is sugesting that the solution lies in acceptance:
Apart from telling the 25 million unemployed Europeans that they should just accept it -
Sarkus, how do you propose that a person go about accepting the ills of material existence?
I'm not sure I understand.
Do you mean a kind of "love at first sight and forever" as people sometimes have for their cats?
Love for pets is probably the closest that ordinary humans can come to unconditional love (and I'm not talking about the kind of pet owners who take their animals to pageants and such). The fact that the beloved are of different species than oneself seems to do away with much of the usual sense of human selfhood.
Where would that be?
its the same logic of the same argument you present.
IOW just as it is idiotic to think of africa in such a manner in the midst of of a discussion about the problems of africa, it is idiotic to think of the material world in such a manner in the midst of a discussion about the problems of the material world.
IOW in all circumstances we take it for granted that living entities experience problems. Thinking in some other manner (like how do inanimate objects approach issues of problem solving) is simply a red herring on your behalf.
And unless Sarkus presents some actionable ways for bringing about acceptance in oneself and others (as acceptance seems to be key to his way of dealing with problems),
what he has said so far about acceptance is tantamount to annulling oneself.
"The problem isn't material existence, the problem is with some part of material existence who refuses to accept that it is material."
Tell us, Sarkus, how does one improve one's ability to accept life's problems?
Should the 25 million unemployed Europeans seek ECT in order to cure them of their inability to accept that there is no economical basis for them?
Which I used to counter a specific point that you made. You are now deliberately misrepresenting the argument.
At no point have I argued that removal of the problem is a solution.
This is your strawman LG, irrespective of the logic used in your examples.
That's the point, LG, this point wasn't talking about the material world but to counter your claim that material existence itself needed a solution! I pointed to a scenario where there was still material existence but no problems, thus requiring you to be more specific with your claims. You accepted this: "I guess I took it for granted that any discussions of problems would encompass living entities."
You are now deliberately misrepresenting my argument for that point for a purpose it was never intended.
That is a straw man.
When you start claiming that material existence itself requires a solution then clearly a distinction needs to be made between life and non-life - for clarity if nothing else.
This was done. You accepted the distinction. You are now harping back to it in efforts to deliberately misrepresent.
But congratulations on so far avoiding the criticism of your own arguments where you happily contradict your position within a single sentence.
Last edited:
You have misunderstood me with regard acceptance.
The only thing to accept is our inevitable mortality.
Everything else will have material solutions.
Millions of unemployed, sick, old, disabled etc. etc are waiting for you to finally present the solution!
then you have to explain what is so intrinsic to a discussion about the problems of the material world as opposed to the problems of africa
then why kick up a stink when I play the same nonsense to counter the claim that africa needs a solution (since one could theoretically take everyone out of africa and voila)
If I said I took it for granted that a discussion about the problems of africa encompassed the living entities residing there would the sarcasm also be lost on you?
At no point have you explained exactly why it misrepresents your argument.
For all intents and purposes they work out of identical general principles.
unlike you who tiptoes around boasts of outliving one's ancestor's huh?
Last edited:
Why do you think I have the answer? I have not said as much.
YOU SAID:
So how can you possibly say that "Everything else [except mortality] will have material solutions"
if you don't know what those solutions are??
Did I say there was? The argument I made was with regard the difference between the problem of material existence per se (your initial position) and the problems resulting from our place within that material existence, of our making, arising from our nature etc.
You are now deliberately misrepresenting those arguments (i.e. taken out of context) and trying to counter them... thus a straw man.
Because you implied that I was suggesting a "solution" that I quite simply wasn't, and you did so by deliberately misrepresenting my argument. I.e. you built a straw man.
The sarcasm is irrelevant - either way you acknowledged the difference.
Yes I have... post #105 adequately explains it.
Sure - and you were attempting to imply that the argument represented a "solution". Hence straw man due to misrepresentation.
It's not a boast, merely a statement of fact, and also of little relevance to whether or not you have had the decency to address the criticisms.
To rephrase LG:
We are attached to things that will shortly cease to exist. This is our problem with material existence, since being attached to things that will shortly cease to exist bings us a lot of suffering.
For as long as one isn't really interested in making actual solutions to this problem, one will have a tough time understanding the relevance of god or the role the material world plays in the divine orchestration of things.
LG is suggesting (if I understood correctly) that the actual solution to our attachment to things that will shortly cease to exist, is to bring God into the picture and to reassess the role that the material world plays.
You (if I understood correctly) are suggesting that the actual solution to our attachment to things that will shortly cease to exist, is to
1. find material solutions,
and
2. accept that they will shortly cease to exist.
That if we would just accept that we and others will die, we wouldn't suffer.
Now I've been asking you how people can learn to accept this, as, obviously, this is not so easy.
What do you suggest that people think and do, so as to be allright with the fact that they and everyone else will die, that everything that they consider to be their "self" is going to cease to exist?
And secondly, how do you suggest that people convince themselves that material solutions are enough?
Sort of, but one needs to appreciate what is encapsulated within "material solution".
I would say that every thought process we have, even those that utilise the concept of God - the belief that God exists included - to be material, and thus anything that adjusts our mindset is a material solution.
Note that this speaks nothing of whether God exists or not... merely of our internal thoughts on the matter.
So my view is that material solutions, even in the guise of religion and religious belief, exist.
Which solution works for an individual is a personal matter.
However, the ideal would be an internally consistent solution - e.g. a material solution that does not rely on a concept of non-materiality.
And for this one would need to accept certain unsolvables.
While there are more superficially-appealing alternatives, that promise so much more, I'm not sure you can learn to... it just isn't a genuine alternative for some people.
It depends on why they think otherwise... is it through fear, through what they have been told, through wishful thinking?
Ask them what it was like for them before they were born, or if they have ever been unconscious then ask them what that unconsciousness was like. If they didn't "fear" either of those situations...?
For many/most I wouldn't think acceptance is a genuine option.
Nonetheless, whatever solutions they arrive at would be within those parameters that they can't accept.