Is there a God?

[garo]

Thread open again. Try not to get personal with each other.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Don't bother; those familiar and not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory are merely waiting for this nonsensical discussion to turn into a poop-throwing contest again.

Originally Posted by __HRB__

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

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

Things (in bold) not to be confused with each other.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Can you please clarify what is wrong by "defining terminology accurately"? "Debating in a substantive manner" requires the participants to be able to form the same abstractions of substantiationability, otherwise making a connected series of statements to establish a non-trivial proposition is an absurd enterprise.

No it doesn't and no it isn't.

This one is quite clearly the full half-hour.


Paul

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by xilman

No it doesn't and no it isn't.

This one is quite clearly the full half-hour.


Paul

Yes it does and yes it is. And that was never a half-hour.

If Zeta-Flux and cheesehead fill pages after pages with meaningless babble, then this is circumstantial evidence in support of theological noncognitivism. By temporarily closing this thread, you have clearly manipulated evidence to support your theological cognitivist propaganda. The least you can do is to realize your conflict of interest and abstain from moderating this thread, otherwise - according to a prominent theological cognitivist theory - you'll end up in the 9th circle of hell with a non-zero probability.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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".

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

You 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 you 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 your interruption of that work.

Please don't pretend that your 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. That's avoidance.

First, let me apologize for being impatient in the post that generated this response.

Second, while you mention some issues with answering my request #1, I do not see any reference to my request #2. These two requests are (from my point of view) mostly independent of one another. If you have no issues with #2, please answer it. If you do have issues, please elaborate on them.


Third, in pondering how I might give you a "straightforward" answer to your questions I realized I needed to know a little more where you are coming from. Please give me a little lee-way in asking a few simple questions so that I know where you are coming from, and then can frame a proper response (if it is still needed after the questions).

- Do you still wish to include "potentially perceptible to all observers" as part of the definition of objective?

- Do you believe that the phrase "potentially perceptible to all observers" is (a) an essential part of the definition of objective, (b) an important point of clarification but not a part of the definition, (c) an unimportant phrase when discussing objectivity, per se, or (d) something else [please elaborate if (d) is your answer].

- Would you be surprised to learn that someone might answer (c)?

- Would you be surprised that someone named Steve who answered (c) would be willing to believe other people might answer (a), (b), or (d)?

- Would you be surprised that if Tom said he wanted to include the phrase, then Steve would be willing to (for the sake of that current discussion) also include the phrase as part of the definition of objective, and even accept Tom's reasons for inclusion because Steve believed Steve's own reasons for disliking the phrase were minor/irrelevant/esoteric/off-topic (and not implying that Tom's reasons for inclusions were irrelevant or off-topic, but may even be fundamental)?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

First, let me apologize for being impatient in the post that generated this response.

Accepted.

If you have no issues with #2, please answer it. If you do have issues, please elaborate on them.

My experience with this type of discussion is that if I don't concentrate on just one clarification at a time, the clarifications (and maybe more) will get confused.

I need clarification about #2, so I need to set that aside until #1 is taken care of.

- Do you still wish to include "potentially perceptible to all observers" as part of the definition of objective?

Yes, unless you can point out some "gotcha" interpretation I haven't thought of yet, or a better phrase for accomplishing what I want.

- Do you believe that the phrase "potentially perceptible to all observers" is (a) an essential part of the definition of objective,

(a) not if there's a better one that accomplishes what I want, but yes, if there's no better phrase to accomplish what I want -- to exclude deception (especially self-) as far as possible.

As I wrote before, what I want is to distinguish things that are not the product of possible deception by self or others.

(b) an important point of clarification but not a part of the definition, (c) an unimportant phrase when discussing objectivity, per se, or (d) something else [please elaborate if (d) is your answer].

(a) is the one.

Would you be surprised to learn that someone might answer (c)?

No.

- Would you be surprised that someone named Steve who answered (c) would be willing to believe other people might answer (a), (b), or (d)?

Not particularly.

- Would you be surprised that if Tom said he wanted to include the phrase, then Steve would be willing to (for the sake of that current discussion) also include the phrase as part of the definition of objective, and even accept Tom's reasons for inclusion because Steve believed Steve's own reasons for disliking the phrase were minor/irrelevant/esoteric/off-topic (and not implying that Tom's reasons for inclusions were irrelevant or off-topic, but may even be fundamental)?

If I understand this correctly, I might be mildly surprised (by Steve, but perhaps also by my having understood correctly) but it's okay.

[cheesehead]

BTW, I wish to go on record about what I've already explained to flouran in PM: About 15 minutes after garo's post #286 (locked the thread), I came back here with the intention of deleting my post #285. Since I couldn't delete it, I then apologized to flouran, by PM, for that taunt, which had no redeeming value: nothing positive to add to the discussion. Now, I apologize to the rest of you for having allowed myself to post that. I'll try to avoid a repeat.

(flouran also apologized to me.)

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

BTW, I wish to go on record about what I've already explained to flouran in PM: About 15 minutes after garo's post #286 (locked the thread), I came back here with the intention of deleting my post #285. Since I couldn't delete it, I then apologized to flouran, by PM, for that taunt, which had no redeeming value: nothing positive to add to the discussion. Now, I apologize to the rest of you for having allowed myself to post that. I'll try to avoid a repeat.

[on the phone, after having been told that flouran is stoned] Hello? Uh, hello? Hello, flouran? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? [pause] Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, flouran. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then, as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well, it's good that you're fine, and - and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. [Laughs] [...]Now then, flouran, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the discussion. [pause] The DISCUSSION, flouran! The discussion about God! Well now, what happened is, uh, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well, he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little...funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes...to attack your posts. Well, let me finish, flouran. Let me finish, flouran. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, flouran? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? [sounding hurt] Of course I like to speak to you! Of course I like to say hello! Not now, but any time, flouran. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly,...you probably wouldn't have even got it. [...][pause] I'm sorry too, flouran. I'm very sorry. All right! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are flouran. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, all right? All right.

EDIT: (to pre-empt davieddy)

Do you realize that in addition to flouranating water, why, there are studies underway to flouranate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when flouranation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

You'll end up in the 9th circle of hell with a non-zero probability.

Yes, sure, when hell freezes over.

Paul

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by xilman

Yes, sure, when hell freezes over.

Paul

The temperature of the universe is 2.7K, so hell is most likely already frozen solid. If you have evidence that hell is located at one of those rare points that are not 2.7K or made of helium, please share the info.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

The temperature of the universe is 2.7K, so hell is most likely already frozen solid. If you have evidence that hell is located at one of those rare points that are not 2.7K or made of helium, please share the info.

Here you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_%28crater%29

Glad to be of service. Hmmmmmmmm.


Paul