[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;198010]
[QUOTE=davieddy;197976]You mean ignoring poignant hints like [a u-tube of muppets singing a song].
[/QUOTE]

Poignant?! Maybe if you're drunk. LOL!

But yes. That does not count as "holding a discussion" in my mind. Maybe more like a "drive-by-shooting."
[/QUOTE]

Just because [I]Mahna Mahna and the Snowths[/I] happen to be muppets means you likely missed the point. From: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah_Nà_Mah_Nà[/url]

"[I][...]The song's lyrics contain no actual words, only nonsense (iambic) syllables resembling scat singing.[...][/I]

----------

@davieddy

Let's argue: I claim that zeta-flux is Mahna Mahna, because he believes in a god and cheesehead is The Snowths because he doesn't. I have conjectural evidence to support this, so I dare you to to argue that zeta-flux is The Snowths and cheesehead is Mahna Mahna.

A Word of Advice
 

I encourage the two debaters to pick up a copy of Jean Baudrillard's [I]Simulacra and Simulation[/I]. Although the treatise deals with post-modernist concepts, it does not take much effort to modify Baudrillard's central thesis and argue that God is essentially a form of consumerist simulacrum and hence is "hyper-real" but not actually existent (the word "hyper-real" is explained in depth by Baudrillard).

OTOH, one could also extend Baudrillard's arguments and argue that the entire "existence" of this universe is an illusion, and that beyond this illusion of what we call life lies a reality that we cannot fathom. At one point, we could fathom this reality, but since we have become so entangled in our own lives, we have lost connection with this reality.

Thus, either of the two aforementioned points can be argued to be valid. I hope the debaters will incorporate this into their arguments rather than pedantically argue over terminology.

[QUOTE=cmd;198003]God is God ![/QUOTE]
GOD is REAL

[COLOR="White"]except when declared INTEGER.[/COLOR]


[spoiler]Yes, I know. I just happen to think the old ones are the best.[/spoiler]


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198033][spoiler]Yes, I know. I just happen to think the old ones are the best.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]

[spoiler]Liquor? But I hardly know her![/spoiler]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;198036][spoiler]Liquor? But I hardly know her![/spoiler][/QUOTE]Ah, the medium joke. It's not rare and it's certainly not well done.

(With acknowledgements to S&W)


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198037]Ah, the medium joke. It's not rare and it's certainly not well done.

(With acknowledgements to S&W)


Paul[/QUOTE]

Knock, Knock ...

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198010]So, if you still want[/quote]What I want now is your detailed explanation of what, in both your and my posts since post #247, is within your definition of "fundamental", and what is within your definition of "off-topic". I don't want to continue until I understand your dividing line.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198044]What I want now is your detailed explanation of what, since post #247, is within your definition of "fundamental", and what is within your definition of "off-topic".[/QUOTE]

Jeez...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198044]What I want now is your detailed explanation of what, in both your and my posts since post #247, is within your definition of "fundamental", and what is within your definition of "off-topic". I don't want to continue until I understand your dividing line.[/QUOTE]I'm gonna have to agree with one (and only one) of the heckling spectators on this point. It looks like you are just avoiding answering the two questions I asked.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;198060]I'm gonna have to agree with one (and only one) of the heckling spectators on this point.[/QUOTE]

@Flouran: He means me! Take that, sucker!! You've lost!!! Muhahaha!!!!

@Zeta-Flux: Surely you will also agree with me that Jesus is much more likely to be a zombie with access to a time-machine, than the son of a god.

1. Fact: if you start walking around after being dead for a while, then you are a zombie.

2. Fact: zombies cannot be killed with rusty nails hammered into their hands and feet or getting speared into the abdomen. If, on the other hand, the [I]Spear of Destiny[/I] had perforated Jesus' brain, he would have been really dead. This theory is falsifiable because we can clone Jesus, and check whether sticking a Spear into his head kills him. If it does, then he must be a zombie and cannot be the son of a god.

3. Fact: time-machines exploiting the flux-floating-body-effect (no capacitors!) have enough quantum in them to remove all paradoxes that are usually associated with "being your own father and a spooky ghost" (cf. Holy Trinity). If Philip J. Fry can do it then certainly can Jesus.

EDIT:

[I]This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..."[/I]

-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198060]It looks like you are just avoiding answering the two questions I asked.[/quote]Come on, Z-F, you're just not paying attention.

Your first question/request, according to the latest wording, is

"1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")"

In order to reword that, I need to get agreement on "objective", because I want to use that word in the rewording.

I'm not avoiding anything. I've been consistently trying to get your agreement on "objective".

[I]You[/I] brought "fundamental" and "off-topic" into our discussion of "objective", not me. [I]You[/I] declared that there was an "off-topic" block, not me. I have been trying to concentrate on what [I]you[/I] said was "fundamental", only to find that you abruptly declared that the discussion had gone "off-topic", in some manner I cannot yet determine.

[I]You[/I] have twice dodged answering my request that you show me how to determine your dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic", which is directly relevant to our discussion of "objective", because [I]you[/I] declared that "this stuff" is "off-topic", but you have not yet defined what you mean by "this stuff".

I haven't dodged. You have. Stop it, and give us a straight answer to the question/request I need answered in order to continue working on my answer to your question/request 1.

I'm not about to just let you cry "off-topic" whenever you wish without your defining the dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic". To do so would just allow you to get away with making objections without defining what the objections are.

I have never stopped working toward answering your question/request, but you refuse to define just what it is that justified [I]your[/I] interruption of that work.

Please don't pretend that [I]your[/I] interruption of my working toward a rewording that you want constitutes my avoidance of anything. _You_ are the one blocking progress, not me.

I find it very odd that you haven't simply and straightforwardly told me what was "off-topic" and what was on-topic (that you characterized as "fundamental") between posts #247 and #260. (For instance, you could quote blocks of text with the annotation "off-topic" or "on-topic" on each block. I might then still need some clarification about your reasons for the classifications, but at least you would have given a straightforward first-level answer.)

_You_ objected, but you won't tell me just what you objected to. [I]That[/I]'s avoidance.