Voltaire and God

[Kafka]

I CAN address the point. What you want me to do is drive down the diversionary path you are setting up. And you seem to be upset that I am not doing so. I've been doing this stuff for a very long time. You don't have a chance of diverting me.

You don't seem to understand what it means to generalize a concept.

If you are agnostic about "Concept X", why are you not agnostic about "Concept Y" which has all the features of Concept X?

This is super-basic logic. Even someone like you who never had a philosophy class can understand it.

 

[Kafka]

If you think I am coming across as a semi-literate buffoon...you are in even greater trouble than I currently think you are. But I think you realize you are getting your doors blown off...and are just saying that kind of stuff in frustration.

You shoulda taken a break while you were behind.

Now you are just further behind.

It's a simple question: if you apply a philosophy to "X", then why do you not apply it to "Y" when X=Y?

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Ross Dolan]

You don't seem to understand what it means to generalize a concept.

If you are agnostic about "Concept X", why are you not agnostic about "Concept Y" which has all the features of Concept X?

This is super-basic logic. Even someone like you who never had a philosophy class can understand it.

Another fail. But, considering the paucity of your logic in this matter, I guess you have got to try.

I'd say, "Good try." But I want to stay on the up and up. I wasn't.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's a simple question: if you apply a philosophy to "X", then why do you not apply it to "Y" when X=Y?

Is that simple enough for you?

If you want to insist that being agnostic about the true nature of the REALITY of existence must be considered on a par with does Santa Claus exist...go for it.

Like I said...I enjoy a good laugh.

 

[Kafka]

Another fail. But, considering the paucity of your logic in this matter, I guess you have got to try.

I'd say, "Good try." But I want to stay on the up and up. I wasn't.

So you honestly can't tell me why you wouldn't apply something consistently?

How is the Transitive Property a Logic Fail in your world?

 

[Ross Dolan]

So you honestly can't tell me why you wouldn't apply something consistently?

How is the Transitive Property a Logic Fail in your world?

Sticking with that amateur game, huh.

How's it working out?

 

[Kafka]

If you want to insist that being agnostic about the true nature of the REALITY of existence must be considered on a par with does Santa Claus exist...go for it.

Like I said...I enjoy a good laugh.

You honestly didn't even understand the question??????

Let's try again:

1. God is a concept that has been merely CLAIMED by other people.
2. God is believed in by millions of people.

A. Santa is a concept that has been merely CLAIMED by other people
B. Santa is believed in by millions of people.


NEITHER of them have ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR EXISTENCE.

So you are free to be agnostic about God. But why are you not agnostic about Santa?

 

[Kafka]

Sticking with that amateur game, huh.

How's it working out?

Given your lack of ability to understand a simple bit of logic, very difficult.

Again:

A = B

IF A = C

THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT B = C.

Except when you are doing it, apparently.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You honestly didn't even understand the question??????

I understood the tactic.
It isn't working. Not at all.

But keep at it.

I am enjoying the laughs.

Let's try again:

1. God is a concept that has been merely CLAIMED by other people.
2. God is believed in by millions of people.

A. Santa is a concept that has been merely CLAIMED by other people
B. Santa is believed in by millions of people.


NEITHER of them have ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR EXISTENCE.

So you are free to be agnostic about God. But why are you not agnostic about Santa?

 

[Kafka]

I understood the tactic.
It isn't working. Not at all.

But keep at it.

I am enjoying the laughs.

So you don't think that the TRANSITIVE PROPERTY is real?

A=B
B=C
THEREFORE A=C

Doesn't hold in your world?

You not only didn't take a philosophy or logic class....you didn't pass 3rd grade math.

 

[Kafka]

Now we start with the memes. Always a sign that you are debating a simp.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Now we start with the memes. Always a sign that you are debating a simp.

Okay...let it be that I am a simp.

As Alexander said when Darius called him a little boy..."Bad move. If you win the battle, it will be said that you beat a little boy. And if I win, it will be said you were beaten by a little boy."

If your position prevails (IF YOU EVER STATE YOUR POSITION)...it will be said you prevailed over a simp. And if you position fails (as it surely8 will IF YOU EVER STATE IT)...it will be said that you failed to a simp.

 

[Kafka]

Okay...let it be that I am a simp.

As Alexander said when Darius called him a little boy..."Bad move. If you win the battle, it will be said that you beat a little boy. And if I win, it will be said you were beaten by a little boy."

If your position prevails (IF YOU EVER STATE YOUR POSITION)...it will be said you prevailed over a simp. And if you position fails (as it surely8 will IF YOU EVER STATE IT)...it will be said that you failed to a simp.

I'm genuinely fascinated now. I guess you don't believe in the Transitive Property.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm genuinely fascinated now. I guess you don't believe in the Transitive Property.

I gotcha transitive property right heah...he said while pointing at his crotch.

 

[Kafka]

I gotcha transitive property right heah...he said while pointing at his crotch.

I'm sorry to hear you don't understand simple things like the transitive property.

 

[Kafka]

I gotcha transitive property right heah...he said while pointing at his crotch.

In your "made up" philosophy classes you imagine you attended. Did they ever utilize logic or syllogisms?

 

[Cypress]

I couldn't care less who has used the argument before. It is still a valid question for the reasons I stated.

I understand you don't want to engage with the point, but the point still stands for the reasons presented.



Again, I'm fine if your "God" concept is little more than a placeholder for an unknowable origin. It has little effect on anything and carries no explanatory value whatsoever. It is, effectively, an empty concept.



As it always was. Just as demons were previously assumed to cause mental illness and cancer remission was attributed to God's benevolence. It is the "God of the Gaps" at it's extreme endpoint.



That sounds a LOT like religion is seeking a being who has direct contact with and interaction with reality. Yet when faced with finding evidence of this interaction nothing seems to show up.

That is why I'm more than happy for you to limit your concept of God as the placeholder for an unknowable origin, but it carries no explanatory value and answers no questions and is, effectively, meaningless.

It almost HAS to be meaningless or there would be some way to test the truth claim of whether God exists or not (and that test should result in something MORE than the mere ABSENCE of an explanation for the universe.)

The ultimate origin, purpose, and meaning of reality and human life (aka, religion) is not in any way comparable to a children's fairytale like Santa Claus.

To even attempt to demand people accept them as equivalent is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm sorry to hear you don't understand simple things like the transitive property.

I do understand them. YOU obviously do not. But, if you want to think there is parity between questions about the ultimate truth of the REALITY of existence and Santa Claus...

...fine with me.

I do love a good laugh.

 

[Kafka]

The ultimate origin, purpose, and meaning of reality and human life (aka, religion) is not in any way comparable to a children's fairytale like Santa Claus.

I have actually tried to engage this point numerous times now so I guess it's no skin off my nose to try yet again:

I agree it is shocking to compare "God" to "Santa Claus" but the point remains: they are two UNEVIDENCED claims people make.

That's my point. It's really pretty simple for someone who is actually paying attention.

If a philosophy is applied to ONE "unevidenced claim" then why is it wrong to apply it to another "unevidenced claim"?

To even attempt to demand people accept them as equivalent is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Again, I sense you never had any fun in philosophy but arguing points like this is not uncommon. Yes I will admit invoking "santa claus" is shocking and a bit silly but even YOU will be able to see that my question is valid.

Unless you are not making a good faith debate.

 

[Ross Dolan]

In your "made up" philosophy classes you imagine you attended. Did they ever utilize logic or syllogisms?

Yes...on many occasions. I don't see how that could be missed or avoided, if you will.

But that is about as far down this silly rabbit hole I am going.

Watch!