|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: October 25, 2007, 06:56:23 PM » |
|
What makes you think there is absolutely no reason beyond your somewhat limited (and I use the term accurately) academic and intellectual capacity? I am sure you probably believe what you do not know must not exist.  You seem to be incapable of making any point without an ad hom. Yet, what is sad is that your inability to argue well is the strongest ad hom against you. Every time you post, you are attacking yourself. It must be hard. Again, I never claimed that I know everything - you are claiming this by saying there is "something other than" which means you must know everything in order to make this claim. Again, your claim seems to be that we cannot know, or "we have eyes and therefore we cannot see". Or, because of our limitations, we cannot know. How do you know this if you are limited? Your logic is atrocious. you seem to be picking up where Tillich left off. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 25, 2007, 06:58:03 PM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #91 on: October 26, 2007, 09:02:42 AM » |
|
b is useful because he shows us how NOT to do logic.
b smuggles in the concept of god through an Argument from Ignorance.
he claims that a chess master may do something u don't understand but there was still a reason.
of course, this means, through b's analogy, that 1) a chess master exists 2) that some actions seem arbitrary but may not be.
so, we have, say, newtonian physics but in b's world these COULD BE reasoned moves by a chess master in the sky.
now, of course, this means we can NEVER know anything since even if we find out a reason, we have ti assume that the chess master meant for us to see one move as a single move but not as one step in a larger progression. (rf argues this,too).
that is, we may THINKaws of physics apply, but really it is a masterful move to decieve us.
we can't know if a chess master (a god-like one) is making a mistake, baiting or making the best move possible at the time.
he may offer his queen because it makes us open up to lose the game. likewise, he may make gravity seem real but onlt for some future purpose.
all in all, b's argument is utterly irrational. "we have eyes, THEREFORE we can't see" is an irrational position. (we are limited, therefore we can't know).
meanwhile, b has not shown us ANY evidence for his "chess master". basically, his example is that of someone finding an example to prove his belief rather than seek the truth. he is simply trying to make his belief system seem rational, but as we see, he fails.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Baldar
|
|
« Reply #92 on: October 26, 2007, 02:06:25 PM » |
|
b is useful because he shows us how NOT to do logic.
b smuggles in the concept of god through an Argument from Ignorance.
he claims that a chess master may do something u don't understand but there was still a reason.
of course, this means, through b's analogy, that 1) a chess master exists 2) that some actions seem arbitrary but may not be.
so, we have, say, newtonian physics but in b's world these COULD BE reasoned moves by a chess master in the sky.
now, of course, this means we can NEVER know anything since even if we find out a reason, we have ti assume that the chess master meant for us to see one move as a single move but not as one step in a larger progression. (rf argues this,too).
that is, we may THINKaws of physics apply, but really it is a masterful move to decieve us.
we can't know if a chess master (a god-like one) is making a mistake, baiting or making the best move possible at the time.
he may offer his queen because it makes us open up to lose the game. likewise, he may make gravity seem real but onlt for some future purpose.
all in all, b's argument is utterly irrational. "we have eyes, THEREFORE we can't see" is an irrational position. (we are limited, therefore we can't know).
meanwhile, b has not shown us ANY evidence for his "chess master". basically, his example is that of someone finding an example to prove his belief rather than seek the truth. he is simply trying to make his belief system seem rational, but as we see, he fails.
"B" must stand for barney, one wonders why he talks in the third person like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #93 on: October 26, 2007, 02:13:57 PM » |
|
b is useful because he shows us how NOT to do logic.
b smuggles in the concept of god through an Argument from Ignorance.
he claims that a chess master may do something u don't understand but there was still a reason.
of course, this means, through b's analogy, that 1) a chess master exists 2) that some actions seem arbitrary but may not be.
so, we have, say, newtonian physics but in b's world these COULD BE reasoned moves by a chess master in the sky.
now, of course, this means we can NEVER know anything since even if we find out a reason, we have ti assume that the chess master meant for us to see one move as a single move but not as one step in a larger progression. (rf argues this,too).
that is, we may THINKaws of physics apply, but really it is a masterful move to decieve us.
we can't know if a chess master (a god-like one) is making a mistake, baiting or making the best move possible at the time.
he may offer his queen because it makes us open up to lose the game. likewise, he may make gravity seem real but onlt for some future purpose.
all in all, b's argument is utterly irrational. "we have eyes, THEREFORE we can't see" is an irrational position. (we are limited, therefore we can't know).
meanwhile, b has not shown us ANY evidence for his "chess master". basically, his example is that of someone finding an example to prove his belief rather than seek the truth. he is simply trying to make his belief system seem rational, but as we see, he fails.
"B" must stand for barney, one wonders why he talks in the third person like that. Again, we see another example of his reasoning: my username starts with a "d", his a "b" but in his world... Ahh, screw it, extremists are irrational and can't seem to even spell... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Baldar
|
|
« Reply #94 on: October 27, 2007, 12:26:37 PM » |
|
Truth is "daedelus" was originally known as barney, attempted to pull a fast one and took on a new identity. It happens I suppose. Everyone who has been around for a while knows he is barney. Apparenly barney dosen't know it? Or is he being dishonest? Why does he talk in the third person like that?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #95 on: October 27, 2007, 01:16:26 PM » |
|
ad homs deleted
I notice that you have nothing to say on the topic. Yet another win for me. You are proving you are a lightweight. (When it comes to debating and, I wager, drinking  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
