Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 517 (145001)
09-27-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


Maybe we want to have different rules for different fora ?
Perhaps Admin could create a "chat" forum for each of the major areas of discussion which requires only that a topic makes sense (more or less) and that the initial post follows the guidelines.
The main fora could then be more restricted and have a higher quality threshold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-27-2004 10:15 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 11:13 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 15 of 517 (145004)
09-27-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
09-27-2004 10:15 AM


Free For All is a bit too unfocussed and doesn't have even the basic checks I suggested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-27-2004 10:15 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2005 4:21 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 174 of 517 (327132)
06-28-2006 10:58 AM


Iano's "Moral Argument for God"
My suggested rephrasing of Premise 1
1 Transcendant objective values of good and evil only exist if God exists.
(That seems the easiest phrasing in plain English. Using the notation of formal logic I'd go for the equivalent of "The nonexistence of God implies the nonexistence of transcendant objective values of good and evil").
{At the moment, what this refers to is obvious. For future reference, it is about this "Proposed New Topic". When refering to things in other topics, supplying links is a good thing. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed previous edit a bit. Use "preview" dummy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-28-2006 11:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 176 of 517 (327146)
06-28-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Adminnemooseus
06-28-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Iano's "Moral Argument for God"
You're wrong about the rephrasing - "only...if" implies a necessary but not sufficient condition. However your phrasing might make Iano's argument a little clearer. However I don't think that that is much of an issue because the argument is formally valid, but the truth of the premises is very much in question (the 2nd in the sense that we need to identify the observed "evil" as objective evil - which is rather hard to do withotu adding more premises).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-28-2006 11:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 178 of 517 (327707)
06-30-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Jazzns
06-30-2006 9:00 AM


Re: robins thread about logic
If Robin wants to discuss the differences between formal logic and informal reasoning then I'm game.
However I have serious doubts about the OP if that is to be the subject. Essentially it says "I have a criticism of Jazzns's debating style - he criticises my debating style and that's wrong". If the OP is just an excuse for having a go at Jazz - and relies on a double standard to do so - then I don't think that it should be promoted as is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Jazzns, posted 06-30-2006 9:00 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by AdminPD, posted 06-30-2006 9:19 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 245 of 517 (435049)
11-18-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by CK
11-18-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Simple's gravity thread
Ignore him. We all know he isn't going to say anything worth reading. Maybe if everyone ignores him he'll go off to pester some other forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by CK, posted 11-18-2007 5:55 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by CK, posted 11-18-2007 6:22 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 260 of 517 (452839)
01-31-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Taz
01-31-2008 10:33 AM


Re: Clivestaplesfan and the 2LoT PRATT.
Since the original PNT is less than promising, perhaps it would be better if one of the people who wants to discuss the matter wrote a more substantial PNT ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 10:33 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 10:50 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 262 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2008 5:29 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 277 of 517 (490644)
12-06-2008 5:19 PM


Bomb Tester
I'm not an expert in Quantum theory, but...
The text about the plunger seems to be an aside, and the text will probably make more sense if it is ignored. Elsewhere in the text it is stated that the bomb either absorbs or transmits a photon.
The text of the article may or may not be entirely accurate but it looks as if something genuine is behind it.
However, that is not a good reason to accept the topic proposal because the proposed "experiment" has almost nothing to do with the "bomb tester". Unless, perhaps Syamasu intends to "set up the circuit in his brain" by having the mirrors and other apparatus needed surgically implanted in his skull.

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Admin, posted 12-07-2008 5:32 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 279 by Syamsu, posted 12-07-2008 10:03 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 295 of 517 (521074)
08-25-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 5:29 PM


I rather doubt that they are the same person. Josh Greenberger seems to be American with no interest in geology - and cpthiltz claims to be a geology student in Scotland, with an interest in cricket.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 5:29 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 326 of 517 (591450)
11-14-2010 3:35 AM


Christ & Caesar
The issue has been discussed here before, Message 1. Although the thesis under discussion appears slightly different, it must be noted that no significant evidence was produced for it.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 330 of 517 (600870)
01-17-2011 3:11 PM


Should Moderators promote their own topics ?
It seems to be a bit of an abuse of power for a moderator to evade the normal pre-promotion review by promoting their own topic immediately, instead of waiting for someone else do it. In order to maintain the appearance of fairness (and to avoid serious abuses in the future) I'd recommend a formal policy forbidding the practice.

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by slevesque, posted 01-17-2011 3:23 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 332 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 3:28 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 334 by Dr Jack, posted 01-17-2011 5:57 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 388 of 517 (621841)
06-29-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Taq
06-29-2011 2:33 AM


Buz can't change the truth
It seems pointless to propose a new debate, when the question is the performance in previous debates - which are still freely accessible. The facts are already proven and a new debate on the same subject cannot change them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 2:33 AM Taq has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 508 of 517 (889282)
11-14-2021 3:29 PM


Copyright violation?
I’m a bit concerned about Tangle’s PNT Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story
It reproduces an entire article with no indication that permission has been sought let alone granted.
A link with selected quotes would be appropriate- but certainly not the entire article unless permission has been granted,

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024