Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Nothing in the world is absolutely free

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:14:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Everything has a cost (energy,time,money)
Even the sun is generating massive amounts of energy but it will eventually run out of energy.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 10:45:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What's your point?
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 3:10:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maybe not, but your mom is still darn cheap.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 8:29:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:16:49 AM, annhasle wrote:
So?

Ann, he is actually making a very subtle case for objective morality.

1) All actions have an inherent utility due to limited sustainability
2) This sustainability is objective and universal
3) A necessary utility implies necessary cost
4) A non-contingent benefit implies an objective paradigm
5) A decision can thus be made to maximize non-subjective utiity
6) This metric is by definition objective and anoptimal right decision is possible.

QED Objective Morality exists.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 8:55:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 8:29:16 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/30/2011 1:16:49 AM, annhasle wrote:
So?

Ann, he is actually making a very subtle case for objective morality.

1) All actions have an inherent utility due to limited sustainability
2) This sustainability is objective and universal
3) A necessary utility implies necessary cost
4) A non-contingent benefit implies an objective paradigm
5) A decision can thus be made to maximize non-subjective utiity
6) This metric is by definition objective and anoptimal right decision is possible.

QED Objective Morality exists.

I'm going to ignore that this was mainly for comic purposes and attack it anyway.
Limited sustainability does not necessarily imply inherent utility. There being a finite number of invisible intangible snarpletts does not necessarily mean they pose any utility to me. (which is not to say it couldn't provide utility, but just that it doesn't necessarily)
As the utility is not necessary, there is no necessary benefit, and therefore there is not necessarily an objective paradigm.
From there the rest is obvious why it doesn't follow.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 9:52:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 8:55:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm going to ignore that this was mainly for comic purposes and attack it anyway.

Damn, I was trying to be subtle and make an apparent surface argument which was of course absolutely nonsensical and then see how long I could enage Ann in a debate and maintain an actual defense of that gibberish.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 9:56:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:52:20 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/31/2011 8:55:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm going to ignore that this was mainly for comic purposes and attack it anyway.

Damn, I was trying to be subtle and make an apparent surface argument which was of course absolutely nonsensical and then see how long I could enage Ann in a debate and maintain an actual defense of that gibberish.

I feel bad now. Sorry =(
I promise not interfere next time.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 9:57:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:56:52 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:52:20 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/31/2011 8:55:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm going to ignore that this was mainly for comic purposes and attack it anyway.

Damn, I was trying to be subtle and make an apparent surface argument which was of course absolutely nonsensical and then see how long I could enage Ann in a debate and maintain an actual defense of that gibberish.

I feel bad now. Sorry =(
I promise not interfere next time.

It was a pretty decent "Socal" attempt though.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 10:19:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:56:52 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I promise not interfere next time.

No worries, it just means I have to try a little harder next time, I honestly did not think any one would catch that - good job. You also picked the exact point of contention I didn`t want anyone to challenge as it is one of the more difficult ones to actually defend. I have a defense but it is not as strong as for the rest of it. I`ll post it up shortly, simply because I am being silly don`t mean we can`t fight about it.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 10:39:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 8:55:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Limited sustainability does not necessarily imply inherent utility.

Utility is defined as a commodity which can provide service, by definition to sustain is to provide services, thus limited sustainability by definition is a limitation in utility. Since this was asserted to be an inherent property of the universe (OP) therefore limitied sustainability implies inherent utility.