It’s called “mathematics”. You wouldn’t know anything about it.
See, there is a problem with all of your sermons. You can’t comprehend how much more other people know about things than you. The things that you think are sophisticated and deep, are in fact, quite shallow and trivial. You just can’t understand why or how they can be known. A cat can’t comprehend how the internet could be real.
What style of debate have you been using lately James? One that will start getting you warnings, I’d say.
James doesn’t like to lose, so he just keeps going even when he runs out of good arguments. He like really does think he’s smarter than average, but I think he may just be a hard worker. Like some people get good grades in school naturally, and some people work really hard for them. The naturals are the smart ones, the hard workers are just…hard workers. He thinks he has a system which overcomes basic problems in philosophy, which makes me think that he doesn’t understand some basic problems in philosophy. I wouldn’t say that except that he seems so sure that it’s not subject to any real flaws, but we all know that’s not how the world works. I promise though, his explanations always start out with some shit about affectance and he always goes on from there. It’s silly, but I let him do it because I know it’s important to him.
Like he and iambiguous are pretty much the same guy. Both just going all blue in the face but with one wanting to prove there’s a right answer all the time, and the other wanting to prove that there’s never one. They’re both wrong. Simplified views of reality like those are always going to be wrong about a lot of stuff. That’s just how shit works. Sometimes things are certain, sometimes they’re indeterminant. James and iambiguous don’t want to believe that.
If they were both here right now they’d just accuse me of being high and then neglect to defend against my charges.
Like, when James says it’s mathematics, he ignores the distinction between symbols and referents. That’s a big deal to a philosopher. James…you can’t do that.
Just because you have 1 apple, and you get 1 more apple, and they weight so much, and you throw it at some certain speed, and you measure the mass of it, and you can figure out how far it will go with so much force behind it doesn’t mean that there’s a god.
We have countered his claims over and over and over. He merely claims that we are “shallow”, “naive”, and “ignorant”. Then he lies about how he has proven his case. No one at all has agreed with his case.
Then, of course, he whines when I return his insults. Read the threads from the beginning when we each have carefully explained why his sermons are erroneous. After pages and pages, we just give up explaining it to him, but remind him that he never proved anything and he is lying when he keeps claiming that he has.
And prismatic, the whole religion thing is so played out. I told you from the beginning that you’re just rehashing and reformulating the problem of evil here, and that your stipulations don’t change that fact, and somehow you’ve hilariously dragged james into a protracted debate and gotten him to show his ass a little. Funny, but still not a proof of an absence of a god. How can you not be bored with this? The entirety of the discourse on whether or not there’s a god is so old, so established, so complete, so inconclusive, so well known, so easily recited that it literally blows my mind that anyone would bother to take more than a few minutes talking about it.
Winning a debate and solving a problem in philosophy are about as related to each other as a horse and saturn’s rings.
And Mr R, if you want to take up his case for him, go for it. He needs serious help with it.
Like when someone “proves” that a 3-omni god can’t exist, they’ve presumed certainty about what’s good and evil. That’s a hell of a feat in and of itself. On top of that they’ve only proven that a) they’ve constructed an impossible definition, or b) that 1 certain kind of god can’t exist.
I mean come on guys this is so basic.
What side to you want me to do? Am I arguing that there’s no god?
…James will bully us all in his endeavour to make us believe otherwise… he takes all the joy out of things… maybe he’s a black hole, but on a planetary level.
Does a black hole affect things?
And you have no idea of what I was referring to. So who is really ignoring the referents?
James, you know that this post does not negate the problem that I pointed to, and you know just as well that I don’t need to know what angle of what argument you were making for my point to stand. Don’t even try this.
Quantities and functions of objects and relations between them doesn’t prove anything about anything outside the system in which they’re being considered. Godel knew this and so do you.
Let’s get on a clean thread if that is the debate you want to take on. Start one. We can at least show someone what an actual debate should look like.
I never start threads man. I finish them.
Prismatic…when you say there’s no evidence…how do you rule out firsthand evidence contained in private mental states?
Prism isn’t going to be able to justify his arguments to you.
And why are you afraid to start threads?
Afraid? I started the greatest thread of all time. My work is done.