-->
@Outplayz
If in your imagination nothing ever dies why can't your imagination come up with reasoning for such claims.
Tell me what you believe.
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay. Let's say I have an Apple and a Pen and I name them both Rocks. Does that make them the same thing?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Well we all evolved. In the source platform everything exists. I believe evolution is one way to give every creature and human there time to exist. But, i really don't think that's what he's asking... pretty sure he wants to call me delusional. We'll see.
-->
@Outplayz
That's probably what he's working towards, but that's your call to make, lol.
-->
@disgusted
You have to be more clear. If i don't understand what you're asking me, i just don't understand so help me understand. If it's what Wrick-Ralph is saying, then bc with evolution everything the source platform has needs a time to exist. That's really all i got from that platform.If in your imagination nothing ever dies why can't your imagination come up with reasoning for such claims.
-->
@Outplayz
And now you have another WHY to answer
source platform everything exists. I believe evolution is one way to give every creature and human there time to exist.
WHY does everything existing rely on a "source platform"?
Every creature already exists WHY would evolution give them a chance that they have always enjoyed?
What is a source platform?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I always give him a chance. Always (unless his response starts with your deluded - ignore those ones). But i've learned not to go deep until he's willing to have a conversation with me (and i really want to). But one sentence answers it is until then.
-->
@Outplayz
You mean no answers.
-->
@Outplayz
Surely eternity is enough time for anything to exist? How much extra time can your source platform add to eternity?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay. Let's say I have an Apple and a Pen and I name them both Rocks. Does that make them the same thing?
Neither apples nor pens are abstract concepts morals and edicts are. This is a category error.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Personal attacks? Oh how droll.
-->
@disgusted
WHY does everything existing rely on a "source platform"?
I don't know the answer to this.
Every creature already exists WHY would evolution give them a chance that they have always enjoyed?
A metaphysical alternative is just that... an alternative. What i like to do is debate these alternatives bc they aren't ruled out, in my opinion. I feel if we can hone on a platform that is logical, then maybe we can find answers. So, a natural explanation is just one explanation that's observable. But, what is reality? Why do animals exist in the first place? Where did we come from and what was before? These are outstanding questions that we can come up with alternatives for.
What is a source platform?
An infinite consciousness type platform (source). There are many monistic type platforms like this but they're all summed up to something like a source. Where everything we have ever thought of, everything here, basically everything... is a manifestation of what this source is. Infinite sand. Everything exists in this sand. But to actualize it needs to become a sandcastle. When it collapses, it doesn't go away but just merge with the platform again and manifest somewhere else again or the same place. That's an analogy to illustrate what it is.
-->
@Outplayz
Personal attacks? Oh how droll.
-->
@secularmerlin
It's not a category error, but just to make you feel better.
If I have the number 1 and 2 and then I name them both 4, are they the same thing?
-->
@Outplayz
What reason does the source platform have for existing?
-->
@disgusted
I'm not sure what you mean
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If you use the same word for multiple number values they do lose their efficacy. I'm not sure I see the point.
-->
@secularmerlin
it's a yes or no question. are they the same thing or not. would the name 4 mean 1 and 2 simultaneously?
-->
@Outplayz
These are outstanding questions that we can come up with alternatives for.
That you can imagine alternatives for. The great success and great failure of the human brain. Imagination. The great success is man on the moon, the great failure is religious beliefs.
-->
@disgusted
What reason does the source platform have for existing?
There really is no reason... it's just a platform. It's not a "who." It everything. So it's not just one thing. Everything exists within it simultaneously i presume... at least that is a deduction i can make if it's infinitely everything. We are just a manifestation of one experience/reality. I imagine there are infinite other realities. Not much different than that physicists many worlds hypothesis. Just that on steroids.
-->
@disgusted
That you can imagine alternatives for. The great success and great failure of the human brain. Imagination. The great success is man on the moon, the great failure is religious beliefs.
Do you want to have a conversation or pretend you are the most knowledge person on earth and have figured out nothing is possible unless you say so?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You could call them both the same thing but they would then be useless as mathematical concepts. So I guess yes but as I said they would then lose all efficacy.
-->
@Outplayz
So basically we are discussing your imagination and you use your imagination to pacify your fears. You only took in a small sliver of the information that atheist gave you and that gave you the freedom to make your own religious beliefs, a small amount of information is a dangerous thing.
-->
@Outplayz
Aren't you participating in this conversation, you seem to get angry very quickly. Like many others when I ask a question that can't be answered logically or reasonably you blame your failure to answer on me.
-->
@disgusted
Dangerous to who? I believe i'm x. No one else needs to be x, i don't care if anyone else believes me about x, i don't preach that anyone has to believe me about x, only that i'm willing to have a conversation about it bc i enjoy that. So, who does my belief hurt?So basically we are discussing your imagination and you use your imagination to pacify your fears. You only took in a small sliver of the information that atheist gave you and that gave you the freedom to make your own religious beliefs, a small amount of information is a dangerous thing.
And my fear of what exactly?
An atheist freed me from dogma that other people indoctrinated me into... i'm humbled for that. Why should i believe in your dogma now? I'm free from believing anyone unless i choose to... including you.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You do realize that I am not arguing that the efficacy of a particular SUBJECTIVE moral standard cannot be objectively measured in relation to a SUBJECTIVE goal?
-->
@disgusted
I'm pretty sure i'm answering you. If i get disrespectful, it's only bc i don't let anyone talk down to me. So, if you do... i will be more direct. Still not mean though... i don't think i've insulted you yet buddy.failure to answer on me
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes and I'm arguing that a subjective standard will allow anybody to make up any moral they want and that's not what happens in reality.
I agree with your statement, I'm just saying that it's not the best method. By looking at cases of morality, we can figure out where the standards are coming from by matching them up. When we do that, they get divided into edicts and inherent dispositions. The edicts match Religion and the inherent dispositions match evolution.
so we have Morality A and Morality B and you're trying to say that they're both Morality C. Ironically, this is a category error on your part because you've conflated religion (abstract) with a biological cue (physical) which is what you accused me of doing earlier when I wasn't.
I combined an apple and a pen which are both physical so it's not a category error. The name is always going to be an abstract because it's the category.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
The evolved behavior is not the moral. The moral is the post hoc justification for the evolved behavior. You seem to be falsely conflating the two.
-->
@secularmerlin
okay, now you're double talking. You literally just said before that people call morality whatever they want and now you're saying that I can't do that so which is it?
You telling me it's not morality is just you stealing the word from me, that doesn't change the fact that my evolutionary cue is the REASON that I'm not murdering people. You' not thinking rationally about this. You're married to this view that morality has to be subjective, so you're rejecting anything that contradicts it.