-->
@secularmerlin
If you would like to know as few falsehoods as possible, maybe you should put a cap on your education. Live a simple life and learn within your means.
The default position.
Posts
Total:
443
-->
@Plisken
That sounds counter productive to my stated goal.
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh? I reckon that may be so, depending on your abilities.
-->
@Plisken
Since you don't seem to mind believing falsehoods I'm not sure how much trust can be put in your conclusions.
-->
@secularmerlin
It's not important for me to believe in as few as possible.
-->
@Plisken
That seems like a poor pathway to truth.
-->
@secularmerlin
It seems like an unknowable metric that is unreasonable to limit myself by in other capacities.
-->
@Plisken
I'm not sure what you mean. Either the truth is important or it is not. If truth is important then it is equally important to believe in as many true things as possible and to believe in as few false things as possible. If on the other hand truth is unimportant then I'm not sure why it would matter what you believe at all. You claimed that one should honestly seek truth. If you really believe that I refer you to the third sentence of this post.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't have time to entertain in this fashion to a conclusion for you tonight. I assume what you wrote in that post has been recognized as rediculous for functioning human values by now.
Not talking about my god. Talking about God.
You are right, the definition is prescriptive,.
Definition of prescriptive
1 : serving to prescribe
Definition of prescribe
transitive verb(it is effecting the word definition)
1a : to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action : ORDAIN
b : to specify with authority
Definition of definition
"a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol"
------
What am I getting at here? The word God means The Ultimate Reality, that is the prescribed definition.
So when you arbitrarily try to lawyer your way around language in order to make your denial of God anything other than a self defeating and idiotic position, you in the end are fulfilling the definition of what it means to be a God denier.
You don't believe in truth, so it stands to reason that you only make appeals to truth in pretense, because by sounding convincing you are more likely to get people to conform to your own personal whim.
Because when it comes right down to it, like most god deniers, you actually do have a god and it is PERSONAL WHIM.
Definition of arbitrary
1a : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
What kind you expect from a nihilistic God denier such as yourself? Arbitrariness. You can't even confess that God exists when the denial of God UNDERMINES EVERYTHING YOU SAY.
You agreeing with me has very little to do with accepting that God with a capital G exists. We are all wrong, but God is right.
And why can't you admit this? Because your god is yourself, and admitting that God exists would undermine your own authority in your mind.
Well, you're going to die just like every foolish God denier before you, and what of your god then? Reduced to nothing, like you.
-->
@Plisken
That you assume rather than demonstrate is exactly what my example is designed to show as problematic. Perhaps you would understand that if you had participate rather than just dropping by to talk about your personal red ball (god).
-->
@Mopac
That you have a prescriptive definition is the problem. If I define a ball as a round object that is descriptive if I define it as a round object that must be red though it may appear to be another color that is prescriptive. I know you don't understand and I'm trying to help but a prescriptive definition is hypothetical and a descriptive definition is observational. Take gravity, that is the force that causes masses to attract. That is descriptive and it is based on real world observations.
-->
@secularmerlin
That you assume rather than demonstrate is exactly what my example is designed to show as problematic. Perhaps you would understand that if you had participate rather than just dropping by to talk about your personal red ball (god).
Thank you for getting back to me. I made an assumption for expediency because of time constraints out of good faith. I participated in your hypothetical. The second sentence is a baseless claim, meaning it has no possible bearing to reality and so you cannot give it a leg to stand on.
-->
@Plisken
Which second sentence? The one that begins Perhaps? Perhaps does not imply a definite conclusion. In fact if you choose not to participate we may never know.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, the second sentence of the explicitly quoted posting which starts with perhaps, is a baseless claim. It is not even remotely in the realm of possibility.
-->
@secularmerlin
Take gravity, that is the force that causes masses to attract.
Gravity ( ) tends toward making dynamic, mass occupied space, spherical O. Ex planets, moons, suns etc and orbits circular or ellipitical.
Chemical structure affects frequency of visible radiation.
Access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts results in faith and conceptually fictional scenarios that have no significant relevance to reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the highest order of faith that the oncoming vehicle is not going to cross center line at last moment and ram me head-on, even tho I know it does happen to people ergo I pay attention to whats in front of me and more so if it is moving{ dynamic } with significant mass.
A conceptual mind game is not moving { dynamic } nor does it occupy space { mass } ergo it is for the most part, insignificant to our reality.
This particular conceptual scenario also is irrelevant to any significant reality.
We do know that differrent chemicals reflect differrent frequencies of EMRadiation or visible radiation specifically.
Ergo as Fred Hoyle points out in his 1990's book, the gene in flower the reflects yellow radiation has same chemical structure in other biologicals that reflect yellow radiation.
Some chemical structure reflects frequency of red radiation, others do not.
Know the chemical structure of the ball surface and we know it will reflect frequency of red photons.
What is chemical structure of the surface of the box?
We can deduce answers to problems/questions indirectly.
Much of my approach is looking for associations no matter how seeming irrelevant or distantly abstract they may seem.
Ex Pi is very abstract yet it perks my attention when Pi^3 { ergo 3D } = 31.00 62 7 66 and complex bilateral humans have 31 left and right-skew polyhedra that just happens to be the case with 31 left and right-skew great circle planes of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron.
Pi^4, minus 31 = 66.4 and perks my attention
Pi^4 / 4 = 24.35 22 7 27 58 50 06 09 30 91 10 08 31 72 17 6
24 is intimate to cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron, and,
31 is intimate to icosa{20}ehdron
6 squares divide into 2 right-angle triangles each ergo 12 right-angle triangles plus 8 equilateral triangles = 20{ icosa } polygon surface of cubo-octahedron and that is same numeber of faces on regular icosa{20}hedron and the both have 12 vertexial nodes.
Entropy of black hole is S { entrop } = area / 4
Surface area of spherical cubo-octahedron is equal to the four, circular, hexagonal planes the define it. Thank you Archimedes.
The opposite of entropy is syntropy.
The default position{ cocneptual viewpoint } is cosmic truth ex cosmic principles/laws that complement occupied and non-occupied SPACE.
-->
@Plisken
The word perhaps does not constitute a definite statement. It implies a duality at least. For every perhaps there is a perhaps not. Until you participate, which may not happen at all, then we cannot say one way or the other. That is expressly what the word perhaps means.
-->
@secularmerlin
That should indicate you are WAY off the mark and may have a false belief to eliminate, right?
-->
@Plisken
What are you talking about? I wasn't expressing a belief.
-->
@secularmerlin
You expressed at least two or lied
-->
@Plisken
What beliefs did I express?
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you seriously need someone else to tell you your beliefs?
-->
@secularmerlin
Descriptive in the context of definitions means that words are defined by common usage. So all it takes is for a word to be redefined is a couple generations of misuse. But academically respective dictionaries, if you hadn't noticed(and you don't because you are now clearly talking about a subject you don't really understand as well as you make pretense), if they use a descriptive definitions also use prescriptive definitions.
All it takes is to construct definitions based on what 6th graders think words mean.. the average superstitious individual.. or even more sinister, amassive psyop campaign over several generations to turn God from The Supreme Being, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, into..... invisible sky daddy chucking lightning bolts... or as ws see in pop culture, interchangeable with god. You of course don't see this as some great mass deception because all God ever was for you to begin with was god, so..
All this flies in the face of millennia of writing concerning the subject, and it is totally obnoxious. Oh, because most people use this word improperly, I'm going to start using the word improperly too. You might as well be going around equating UFO with space creatures from sirius, instead of an Unidentified Flying Object because that is what you are doing. Do you see how this is superstitious?
You should give up this charade and admit THE TRUTH. For Christs sake, you adopting The Ultimate Reality as being God would allow you to actually talk about this subject instead of avoiding it, because that is what you are doing when you insist on using these ridiculous mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you are wrong and learning something. You accepting God would actually allow you to talk about what God is and isn't, which is more edifying to everyone involved.
No one should have to prove that God exists. God is a given. Why should I waste my time trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in The Truth of anything? It is fundamentally a language issue. That is why the only atheist argument against God is to make God something other than what God is, and smash idols. That is why you are arguing for a descriptive definition instead of a prescriptive definition, so you can do what I have been claiming is the only atheist argument from the beginning.... language tricks.
And so the scripture is fulfilled that...
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever."
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
keith we've been dumped.@keithprosser @castinAs I have never known you to make a red ball statement unless you have further questions I will assume you take my point and more or less agree. You are both of course always welcome on any of my threads but barring any questions or comments I believe that we have explored this topic to its natural conclusion and I shall concentrate on those who are still on there way.
"Look baby it's over between us. I'll always cherish what we had but I just think this relationship has run its course. It's not you, it's me. I want to date other people. There's only room for one red ball empiricist in this thread, you know? I need some space."
-->
@Plisken
I need you to tell me what beliefs you think that I was expressing since I was not attempting to express any beliefs. We cannot discuss the matter unless you are more specific. Of course you are under no obligation to provide these details but understand that in that case this conversation is not likely to be very fruitful.
-->
@Castin
I'm not leaving until I find out what colour the ball is.
-->
@Mopac
Let's talk about that shall we. You see language evolves over time and so prescriptive definitions also evolve. As a ready example when I was growing up ain't was not considered a "real" word but through time and popular usage it became recognized as one. This is its definition.
contraction
unpunctuated: aint
- am not; are not; is not."if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
- has not; have not."they ain't got nothing to say"
And again (not to sound like a broken record but) we are not arguing about wether reality exists or even what thay reality should be called. Call it god (capitalize or not) if you like but that does not give you fiat to make claims about that reality without demonstrating those claims. That you have a prescriptive definition in mind is completely besides the point if it is not also descriptive.
@castin @Keithprosper
You can open this box when you pry it from my cold dead fingers! Lol
-->
@secularmerlin
GIVE US THE GODDAMN BOX.
-->
@secularmerlin
This is what you sound like to me...
"My excuse for denying the truth is that some people say things are true that aren't"
"I reject the truth because I don't know it, and knowledge is a god I place before God as my god."
"The dictionary doesn't say what I want it to say, so I'm going to argue against it and bank on the fact that eventually no one is going to speak English anymore."
"I don't really care about what is right, I care that I must be right."
"Magic is the utilization of belief as a tool. I'm a wizard! It doesn't matter if what I'm saying is true, people will believe me if my rhetoric and sophistry is good enough. Maybe even I will believe in my own bulkshit! I'm a wizard! Nothing is true, all is permitted! Arbitrary! Arbitrary! Prove to me that it is true that there is truth! See, you can't do it. I reject The Truth! Trolololololol"