|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well as I said to Xongsmith in the Inductive Atheism thread - Bluegenes theory is all about supernatural CONCEPTS and their naturalistic source of origin.
If you are still unclear about this then it might well be part of your ongoing comprehension problem in these threads. Maybe see you in Inductive Atheism later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, so the original theory, that the beings themselves have been shown to be imagined has been abandoned.
The concepts of those beings, like any concept, must come from the human imagination. So you agree that all scientific concepts are figments of the human imaginations, right? That a tree can be demonstrated and a god cannot, and the problems that arrise from that, doesn't really have anything to do with the concepts of those things necesssarily being imagined, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Concepts generated by a human mind verses concepts generated by a computer. If AI ultimately reaches the level by which humans consider it "the same" then the question HAL asked?
"Will I dream?" will indeed be a intriquing phylosophical question we humans will be faced with. If Human Intelligence can generate supernatural concepts from our imagination then it seems logical that machines will someday follow suit. What will be the ramifications of such a reality where machines have a machine derived god. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Straggler writes: Were you reading the same debate that I was?
X writes: Straggler writes: So RAZ wasn't implying that Subbie's inability to refute something undefined was somehow confirmation of the validity of RAZ's relentless pursuit of the agnostic position? You don't think? No. Not exactly. Have you read Message 28? I like Message 30 better.
My whole post was to make a point about RAZ's idiotic approach. It wasn't supposed to be point by point summary of the conversation with Subbie. It never occurred to me that you (or anyone else) would take it so literally. But we need to be carefull. WE CANNOT ASSUME ANYTHING.
X writes: Straggler writes: The term that is being sought here is ignosticism. You cannot be agnostic towards the existence of something without knowing what it is. Whatever RAZ tries to assert. I would agree with this Then you agree with the point of the post. Try not to be so fucking literal. Not exactly accurate. I agree with ignostic, but I also agree that RAZD's agnostic discussion is appropriate as well.
X writes: RAZD wasn't being obstinate - he was admitting that he couldn't define god(s) well enough. RAZ takes whatever approach to this is required to blockade the debate from directions and questions he cannot cope with. When I last engaged him on this exact same issue he insisted that no definition of god was necessary because we all knew what was meant anyway.
RAZD writes: "Curiously, most people have no problem understanding what the concept god means". Message 445 He can't have it both ways can he now? But did he include himself in "most people"? No. Rather, I see he is having major problems trying to come to grips with a god concept. I see agonizations. I see a look for help, as in the "DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT??!!??!!" sorts of things. I see admissions at the get-go that a god concept would necessarily mean we could never understand what a god is. I see RAZD resorting to the leanest, stripped-down formal logic he can find, in order to eliminate as much as possible the bullshit that humans have injected into this whole issue, in order to learn as much as possible about what such a thing would be. He is test-flying the various versions of logic he has come up with so far to cast off wrong roads and find anything of value that moves the answer closer. What have we seen so far? He is a 3, agnostic leaning towards a belief in a Deist God who created the universe and then went off elsewhere to do other things. The subsequent results are both beautiful and humorous (The Silly Design Institute). Now, for me, the humorous instances would be only a natural filling in of histogram bins in any natural gaussian curve's envelope. Seems to me one of his primary objectives is to move people, such as readers of this forum and himself, from the Ignostic to the Agnostic to the hopeful goal (like any scientist's goal) of Gnostic. But then, that is all pure conjecture on my part and not a theory. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Catholic Scientist writes: So you agree that all scientific concepts are figments of the human imaginations, right? TOUCHE' !!! This is why I opined that bluegenes theory really wasn't of much value. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZ has produced an astonishing array of colourful charts, scales, flow charts etc. Based on these what position is he saying it is rationally justified to take towards a concept which is unable to be defined? My answer is this:
Link writes: ignostic (plural ignostics) 1. one who holds to ignosticism.2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive. ignostic - Wiktionary Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are. What do you think? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
In Message 31, Subbie writes:
Curiously, I have no need to prove or disprove your claim: you made it not me.
Amusingly, it turns out that you aren't actually making any claim at all about gods, so there's really nothing to prove or disprove. I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist. Support the position that what doesn't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Straggler writes: What do you think? I think it's time we had another drink. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Straggler writes: Support the position that what doesn't exist? Now I KNOW we need another drink.
"You raise up your headAnd you ask, "Is this where it is?" And somebody points to you and says "It's his" And you say, "What's mine?" And somebody else says, "Where what is?" And you say, "Oh my God Am I here all alone?" - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: I think it's time we had another drink. Guilty as charged!!! In the name of congeniality I will ignore the fact that you have sidestepped the question for now and simply say well done for remembering my Friday afternoon beer-o'clock policy. I am indeed sinking a few along with my colleagues. And replying to you lot in what they think are wholly necessary bouts of "IT emergency maintenance" as defined by - erm me!!!! Such are the joys of autonomy at work. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
CS writes: I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist It might be rather easy for Subbie to make the point that a "nothing" doesn't exist, by definition. Mind you, if the universe was self-creating or eternal in some state, as many scientists think, or if it's truly universal (everything) then it would have been created by nothing, and they'd both win the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: Now I KNOW we need another drink. I THINK you are right. (**Straggler opens another beer**) Ahhhhhhhhhh.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024