Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Theory

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...]
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM, n7 wrote:
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.

Messed it up by accident that is.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To nitpick, I think premise 4 should be "Perception is relative" and then premise 5 should point out that it would entail that reality itself is subjective. Right now, P4 and 5 seem to be proposing almost exactly the same thing, as subjective means relative to one's mind.

Premise 2

Your defense is contradictory with the premise and your case. You present an argument for representationalism (the view that we observe sense data like light, ect and our mind interprets it.) but your conclusion is that everything exists in the mind. If reality is in the mind, then so is retinas, light and the brain, they are fundamentally no different than a coffee cup. So, how can those entities be used in the argument? Later in the argument you directly contradict this defense by claiming there are no true facts about reality, but then there must also be no true facts about the science of perception. You have made your premise's defense on true facts about reality, when you are trying to conclude the opposite.

The defense itself fails to refute direct realism either way. Under direct realism the causes of perception is the medium between the external object and your awareness of it. You can still be aware of the external object, but aware of it via a medium (light, ect) . It doesn't follow that you are aware of only your mental processes.

Premise 3

There's nothing really wrong with the content of this (without getting into pyrrhonian skepticism), but I don't understand the relevance in relation to the rest of the argument. You argue that truth is objective, but later claim there is no truth about reality. Do you mean a priori truths (eg, 2+2=4) or empirical truths (eg, dinosaurs existed) or both? If you mean only empirical truths or both then you're argument is contradictory because in the next premise you argue that reality is subjective. If you mean a priori truths, then I fail to see the relevance because you're dealing with a posteriori reality.

Premise 5

You seem to be contradicting yourself here too. You claim "there is no knowledge of reality", but this presumes knowledge about reality. And again with "all of our judgements are false", if this is true, then so is your judgement about judgements. As I've said before, everything in this premise contradicts your defense of P2.

From a writing standpoint, it's pretty well written. Especially considering it was written at 1 am. The main problem with the actual content seems to be the defense of P2 and the self refuting statements in P5. Both of those can be fixed, because I don't think the position that empirical truths are subjective need to have the self refuting statements.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:00:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM, n7 wrote:
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.

I enabled comments, not editing. I have to approve of anything you do.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:02:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:31:01 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM, n7 wrote:
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.

Messed it up by accident that is.

Lol, it's alright, thank you for taking the time to read through, I will respond to what you said when I have access to a computer.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 11:00:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:02:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:31:01 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM, n7 wrote:
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.

Messed it up by accident that is.

Lol, it's alright, thank you for taking the time to read through, I will respond to what you said when I have access to a computer.

"If there is no truth of reality, then there is no knowledge of reality, and reality is merely a figment of our imagination."
I'm lazy so I just read whatever jumped out at me. But a question. How can you have knowledge that reality is a figment of our imagination if there is no knowledge of reality? Isn't saying reality is a figment of our imagination knowledge as to what reality is? This is what I call a bong hit inspired critique.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 11:00:32 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/18/2015 5:02:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:31:01 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM, n7 wrote:
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.

Messed it up by accident that is.

Lol, it's alright, thank you for taking the time to read through, I will respond to what you said when I have access to a computer.

"If there is no truth of reality, then there is no knowledge of reality, and reality is merely a figment of our imagination."
I'm lazy so I just read whatever jumped out at me. But a question. How can you have knowledge that reality is a figment of our imagination if there is no knowledge of reality? Isn't saying reality is a figment of our imagination knowledge as to what reality is? This is what I call a bong hit inspired critique.

Knowledge of the representation/nature of reality.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...]

Want to debate this?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:25:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 4:15:05 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...]

Want to debate this?

Well...maybe, saying this shows that you are confident in your abilities to destroy my theory and get a win out of it, so I wouldn't want to have a loss, I would rather discuss it here. because once you show my theory is false, then I would concede.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 9:21:16 PM, n7 wrote:
To nitpick, I think premise 4 should be "Perception is relative" and then premise 5 should point out that it would entail that reality itself is subjective. Right now, P4 and 5 seem to be proposing almost exactly the same thing, as subjective means relative to one's mind.

Premise 2

Your defense is contradictory with the premise and your case. You present an argument for representationalism (the view that we observe sense data like light, ect and our mind interprets it.) but your conclusion is that everything exists in the mind. If reality is in the mind, then so is retinas, light and the brain, they are fundamentally no different than a coffee cup. So, how can those entities be used in the argument? Later in the argument you directly contradict this defense by claiming there are no true facts about reality, but then there must also be no true facts about the science of perception. You have made your premise's defense on true facts about reality, when you are trying to conclude the opposite.

I'll delete the part that reality exists in the mind, it serves no purpose in the argument anyways.

The defense itself fails to refute direct realism either way. Under direct realism the causes of perception is the medium between the external object and your awareness of it. You can still be aware of the external object, but aware of it via a medium (light, ect) . It doesn't follow that you are aware of only your mental processes.

Well I wasn't trying to refute direct realism, merely trying to prove a version of solipsism.

Premise 3

There's nothing really wrong with the content of this (without getting into pyrrhonian skepticism), but I don't understand the relevance in relation to the rest of the argument. You argue that truth is objective, but later claim there is no truth about reality. Do you mean a priori truths (eg, 2+2=4) or empirical truths (eg, dinosaurs existed) or both? If you mean only empirical truths or both then you're argument is contradictory because in the next premise you argue that reality is subjective. If you mean a priori truths, then I fail to see the relevance because you're dealing with a posteriori reality.

I see what you mean, and I see the problem, truth being objective was essential to showing that reality exists in the imagination. Since truth is objective, and reality is subjective, then there can never be truth in reality. I feel that I meant both of the truths that you mentioned, and hadn't thought of specifying the kind of truth I meant.

Premise 5

You seem to be contradicting yourself here too. You claim "there is no knowledge of reality", but this presumes knowledge about reality. And again with "all of our judgements are false", if this is true, then so is your judgement about judgements. As I've said before, everything in this premise contradicts your defense of P2.
Well my judgement did not have to do with reality, judgement as in perspective of what is reality.

From a writing standpoint, it's pretty well written. Especially considering it was written at 1 am. The main problem with the actual content seems to be the defense of P2 and the self refuting statements in P5. Both of those can be fixed, because I don't think the position that empirical truths are subjective need to have the self refuting statements.

Thank you, I appreciate it greatly. Deleting P2 I think will solve that problem.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 11:29:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 3:36:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/18/2015 11:00:32 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/18/2015 5:02:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:31:01 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:30:48 PM, n7 wrote:
Reading it now, but you might want to change the document to read only, because I can edit it. I almost messed it up.

Messed it up by accident that is.

Lol, it's alright, thank you for taking the time to read through, I will respond to what you said when I have access to a computer.

"If there is no truth of reality, then there is no knowledge of reality, and reality is merely a figment of our imagination."
I'm lazy so I just read whatever jumped out at me. But a question. How can you have knowledge that reality is a figment of our imagination if there is no knowledge of reality? Isn't saying reality is a figment of our imagination knowledge as to what reality is? This is what I call a bong hit inspired critique.

Knowledge of the representation/nature of reality.
So you can have knowledge that your knowledge of nature and reality is a figment of your imagination, but that doesn't mean that it being a figment of your imagination may also merely be a figment of your imagination? If its a figment of your imagination, how do you know your imagination isn't actually representative of reality?
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth."
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:33:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth."

If there is only one objective truth, then it has to be that there is only objective truth, or the premise is false. So if they are smart, it is that. But interesting, thanks for letting me know.
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:44:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean? : :

All thoughts come from the one Truth but only a few are invited to the deeper knowledge to understand the difference between what is observed and what can't be observed. What is observed has deceived every man unless they were taught what can't be observed, which is our true reality.
YYW
Posts: 36,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:45:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...]

I added a comment. Stay off the nyquil, kid :p
Tsar of DDO
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:11:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.

ahhh now i see. Again with my example of the creator. Neither of us know the objective truth or not, your truth is that there is, while my truth is there is someone but probably not at the same degree you believe it to be. But again the objective truth is unknown to both us. You are just preaching away like everyone else in the world
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:17:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 11:45:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...]

I added a comment. Stay off the nyquil, kid :p

It was when I was really sick, remember?
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:17:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:11:40 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.

ahhh now i see. Again with my example of the creator. Neither of us know the objective truth or not, your truth is that there is, while my truth is there is someone but probably not at the same degree you believe it to be. But again the objective truth is unknown to both us. You are just preaching away like everyone else in the world.

The objective Truth made sure the flesh wouldn't accept Him. I don't speak for the flesh anymore. I speak for our Creator.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:18:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:17:43 AM, nueron wrote:
At 10/21/2015 12:11:40 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.

ahhh now i see. Again with my example of the creator. Neither of us know the objective truth or not, your truth is that there is, while my truth is there is someone but probably not at the same degree you believe it to be. But again the objective truth is unknown to both us. You are just preaching away like everyone else in the world.

The objective Truth made sure the flesh wouldn't accept Him. I don't speak for the flesh anymore. I speak for our Creator.

Yes of course you do...
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:20:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.

I agree with you on the illusion of past, present and future, but if this would be acepted true, this would mean that eternalism is sound. And thus the Creator would not exist.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:21:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:18:18 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/21/2015 12:11:40 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:

I'm pretty sure its BoG

shh its like a deer if you put the headlights on him he'll spook lol but you're right or one of his indoctrinated peoples
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
YYW
Posts: 36,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:26:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:17:12 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:45:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...]

I added a comment. Stay off the nyquil, kid :p

It was when I was really sick, remember?

Ah, well alright then.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:31:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:21:44 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/21/2015 12:18:18 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/21/2015 12:11:40 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:

I'm pretty sure its BoG

shh its like a deer if you put the headlights on him he'll spook lol but you're right or one of his indoctrinated peoples

Yeah, I really like BoG, he is actually extremely intelligent and is interesting to hold a conversation with, especially about time and reality and stuff, even if he's bit insane. I didn't know he had any followers, or any on DDO to that extent. That'll be fun lol
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 1:23:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:11:40 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.

ahhh now i see. Again with my example of the creator. Neither of us know the objective truth or not, your truth is that there is, while my truth is there is someone but probably not at the same degree you believe it to be. But again the objective truth is unknown to both us. You are just preaching away like everyone else in the world : :

You don't listen very well. I said I speak for our Creator ( the Truth ). That means I don't have to believe in Him anymore.
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 1:28:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:20:11 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:48:08 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:07:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:04:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/20/2015 7:16:01 PM, nueron wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:59:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
So I thought up this theory a couple weeks ago while I was reading at 1 in the morning and 'high' on NyQuil. Writing down the basics of it on the back of my book, I wrote up a 'paper' about it and the basic structure. Granted I just finished it, haven't proof read it, and I'm not that good a writer in the first place. I have finished the rough draft of it. I suppose I am done with all my excuses now. So I would appreciate it if ya'll reviewed it and pointed out flaws in my argument, see if it's sound.
[https://docs.google.com...] : :

The Truth has taught you well but don't be surprised that the Truth is withheld from most people.

What do you mean?

i've asked him and another this twice, once on two different threads. What he is saying is that there is one objective truth while all others are subjective. I am asking him is how am i supposed to believe that his truth is the right one. Basically what separates him from the rest of the people talking about "the truth." : :

I have given you an answer that you don't understand. If you keep listening to my written and spoken testimonies from our Creator, you will learn that the past, present and future all exist at the same time, which is where our true reality. Time, space and matter are not our true reality.

I agree with you on the illusion of past, present and future, but if this would be acepted true, this would mean that eternalism is sound. And thus the Creator would not exist. : :

I never said the past, present and future were illusions. That's our true reality. What you perceive as time, space and matter has kept you from knowing our true reality.