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.
I’m seeing a lot of talking, no walking.
Let’s talk about symbols and referents on your side, and evidence contained in private mental states on his side. I mean, I technically think that you’re both wrong.
I’m not sure what you are trying to put forth, but still, get it onto a clean thread so we can make sense of it.
I am sure that you’re trying to get me to put something fourth, so that I can be at a rhetorical disadvantage as the one who’s forced to induct. You’re no Socrates James. I know these tricks.
Just tell me how you get from an abstract system to a concrete fact about the world without violating the distinction between symbols and referents.
Oh, that is just a BS trick of your own. Afraid to commit to anything?
I still need for you to clarify that. Maybe an example or two?
You can draw all the diagrams that you want, and you can write out all the formulas in the world, and you can quantify everything under the sun and at the end of the day the proof as to whether there is or isn’t a god just simply doesn’t rest on those things.
Well, that would be BS, but is that the error that you were talking about?
How about just quote whatever it was that you felt was whatever kind of error you are talking about.
I’ll take your “BS” remark as your concession. It’s 5am. Have something better for when I wake up. I don’t have to quote you, I know how you think and my statement stands on its own.
That’s what I thought. You never actually engage in debate, do you. Hit n Run.