Total Posts:179|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it possible to argue against the Truth?

bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Argument means that no one has the truth to understand the delusion we exist in.

Whatever you see can change into something totally different such as the place in New York where the Twin Towers were built in the 1960's and 70's.

Take your six year old child to this place and try explain to him how two tall towers once stood above all other buildings. If this child didn't know anything about the destruction of these buildings, he would have to believe your story or walk away in disbelief.

If your child doesn't believe your story, he may begin arguing with you that it was impossible that two tall buildings were there at one time.

What would you say to him if he said this?

Would you try argue with your six year old or accept his disbelief?

Would you go buy him a book with pictures of the twin towers in it and try convince him that those pictures were taken while they still existed?

Would a picture be enough proof to make this child believe that there were two tall buildings in New York at one time? Or would you have to find a story about the 9/11 attacks that caused the destruction of these buildings?

After the child reads about the 9/11 attacks, what would you say if the child told you he didn't believe the 9/11 attacks caused the Twin Towers to be destroyed and that they were actually imploded by a demo crew?

Would you begin to argue with the child about who was responsible about destroying the Twin Towers or would you tell him that you don't know what happened.

We are living in a world created by God to deceive us from who we truly are and who He is. By having the Twin Towers destroyed, God caused a lot of confusion in the minds of His people. It makes no difference to His people who done it because it's the effect of keeping His people focused on this delusion that he wanted to accomplish in the first place.

God's delusion causes us to believe we have decisions to make but we should know that this is untrue by flipping a coin to see whether it lands with heads up or tails up. Some gamblers believe they can beat the odds by flipping the coin from different angles or from different heights but after tossing it hundreds of times, they still can't predict whether it will land on heads or tails, even when it's proven that it will land at least 50 % of the time on either heads or tails.

So argument comes from not knowing the Truth that God created this delusion to deceive His people. As long as you believe in this world, you are deceived of who planned this deluded world.

Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 5:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey man, you've really enlightened me you know. Honestly, I feel better about things and think I understand things better. Thanks.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 5:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lol, I was having these ideas that I hadn't really left behind self-righteousness yet. They were dreams even, though waking ones. And you've just been so relevant all the time, like a teacher lol. All right, I'm gone before anyone thinks I'm too crazy and tries to get me locked up :P I'm humbled dude.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 6:12:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 5:41:39 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Hey I'd like your skype too if you wouldn't mind

Put "thevoiceofgod" before "@" and add "hotmail.com" at the end to send me your Skype name. Let me know when I can call you on Skype, too.

Talk with you soon.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 6:13:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 5:39:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Lol, I was having these ideas that I hadn't really left behind self-righteousness yet. They were dreams even, though waking ones. And you've just been so relevant all the time, like a teacher lol. All right, I'm gone before anyone thinks I'm too crazy and tries to get me locked up :P I'm humbled dude.

All my friends and I are considered crazy to the self-righteous bunch. That's exactly how God planned it.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:50:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Argument means that no one has the truth to understand the delusion we exist in.

Whatever you see can change into something totally different such as the place in New York where the Twin Towers were built in the 1960's and 70's.

Take your six year old child to this place and try explain to him how two tall towers once stood above all other buildings. If this child didn't know anything about the destruction of these buildings, he would have to believe your story or walk away in disbelief.

If your child doesn't believe your story, he may begin arguing with you that it was impossible that two tall buildings were there at one time.

What would you say to him if he said this?

Would you try argue with your six year old or accept his disbelief?

Would you go buy him a book with pictures of the twin towers in it and try convince him that those pictures were taken while they still existed?

Would a picture be enough proof to make this child believe that there were two tall buildings in New York at one time? Or would you have to find a story about the 9/11 attacks that caused the destruction of these buildings?

After the child reads about the 9/11 attacks, what would you say if the child told you he didn't believe the 9/11 attacks caused the Twin Towers to be destroyed and that they were actually imploded by a demo crew?

Would you begin to argue with the child about who was responsible about destroying the Twin Towers or would you tell him that you don't know what happened.

We are living in a world created by God to deceive us from who we truly are and who He is. By having the Twin Towers destroyed, God caused a lot of confusion in the minds of His people. It makes no difference to His people who done it because it's the effect of keeping His people focused on this delusion that he wanted to accomplish in the first place.

God's delusion causes us to believe we have decisions to make but we should know that this is untrue by flipping a coin to see whether it lands with heads up or tails up. Some gamblers believe they can beat the odds by flipping the coin from different angles or from different heights but after tossing it hundreds of times, they still can't predict whether it will land on heads or tails, even when it's proven that it will land at least 50 % of the time on either heads or tails.

So argument comes from not knowing the Truth that God created this delusion to deceive His people. As long as you believe in this world, you are deceived of who planned this deluded world.

Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.

No, that's just plain silly. If a child asserts it is "impossible" that two tall buildings once stood there, it's a pretty simple exercise to present that child with other examples of similar tall buildings in order to demonstrate that yes, it is possible that tall buildings exist and - therefore any claim that it is impossible for two buildings to have been standing in a location is logically invalid (doesn't matter if the person is only 6, bad logic is bad logic)

Now, can you use that same process to demonstrate the existence of the Creator of the universe? It's easy, just point out an example of another Creator who is currently busy breating another universe, so we can see that such a thing exists.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:54:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 2:50:47 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Argument means that no one has the truth to understand the delusion we exist in.

Whatever you see can change into something totally different such as the place in New York where the Twin Towers were built in the 1960's and 70's.

Take your six year old child to this place and try explain to him how two tall towers once stood above all other buildings. If this child didn't know anything about the destruction of these buildings, he would have to believe your story or walk away in disbelief.

If your child doesn't believe your story, he may begin arguing with you that it was impossible that two tall buildings were there at one time.

What would you say to him if he said this?

Would you try argue with your six year old or accept his disbelief?

Would you go buy him a book with pictures of the twin towers in it and try convince him that those pictures were taken while they still existed?

Would a picture be enough proof to make this child believe that there were two tall buildings in New York at one time? Or would you have to find a story about the 9/11 attacks that caused the destruction of these buildings?

After the child reads about the 9/11 attacks, what would you say if the child told you he didn't believe the 9/11 attacks caused the Twin Towers to be destroyed and that they were actually imploded by a demo crew?

Would you begin to argue with the child about who was responsible about destroying the Twin Towers or would you tell him that you don't know what happened.

We are living in a world created by God to deceive us from who we truly are and who He is. By having the Twin Towers destroyed, God caused a lot of confusion in the minds of His people. It makes no difference to His people who done it because it's the effect of keeping His people focused on this delusion that he wanted to accomplish in the first place.

God's delusion causes us to believe we have decisions to make but we should know that this is untrue by flipping a coin to see whether it lands with heads up or tails up. Some gamblers believe they can beat the odds by flipping the coin from different angles or from different heights but after tossing it hundreds of times, they still can't predict whether it will land on heads or tails, even when it's proven that it will land at least 50 % of the time on either heads or tails.

So argument comes from not knowing the Truth that God created this delusion to deceive His people. As long as you believe in this world, you are deceived of who planned this deluded world.

Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.

No, that's just plain silly. If a child asserts it is "impossible" that two tall buildings once stood there, it's a pretty simple exercise to present that child with other examples of similar tall buildings in order to demonstrate that yes, it is possible that tall buildings exist and - therefore any claim that it is impossible for two buildings to have been standing in a location is logically invalid (doesn't matter if the person is only 6, bad logic is bad logic)

Now, can you use that same process to demonstrate the existence of the Creator of the universe? It's easy, just point out an example of another Creator who is currently busy breating another universe, so we can see that such a thing exists.


The Absurd-Stability Argument


P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:57:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 6:13:56 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:39:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Lol, I was having these ideas that I hadn't really left behind self-righteousness yet. They were dreams even, though waking ones. And you've just been so relevant all the time, like a teacher lol. All right, I'm gone before anyone thinks I'm too crazy and tries to get me locked up :P I'm humbled dude.

All my friends and I are considered crazy to the self-righteous bunch. That's exactly how God planned it.
And luckily for you borno you can keep your shoes on when you say that. LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 3:04:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 2:54:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

The Absurd-Stability Argument

P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!

LOL :P I love it

The problem though, is that it can be dismantled at the very first premise - "The natural world seems to work via cause and effect", which...while true...can't actually be used as a premise in a logical argument, because "seems to" doesn't neccesarily equate to "does"

)
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 3:06:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 3:04:34 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/4/2013 2:54:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

The Absurd-Stability Argument

P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!

LOL :P I love it

The problem though, is that it can be dismantled at the very first premise - "The natural world seems to work via cause and effect", which...while true...can't actually be used as a premise in a logical argument, because "seems to" doesn't neccesarily equate to "does"

. :)

But doesn't it help with my argument for the likelihood of such beings?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 4:33:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.
Step 1: Apart from your imagination, where's your evidence for a Supernatural Creator?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 5:19:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 4:33:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.
Step 1: Apart from your imagination, where's your evidence for a Supernatural Creator?

And what other kind of creator than a stupid or mean one would intentionally create delusions.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:38:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 5:19:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 4:33:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.
Step 1: Apart from your imagination, where's your evidence for a Supernatural Creator?

And what other kind of creator than a stupid or mean one would intentionally create delusions.

The same one who buried fake dinosaur fossils in the ground to test our faith :P

Basically, God seems to run around messing with us and singing "TROLLOLOLOLOLOL!"
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:40:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 3:04:34 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/4/2013 2:54:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

The Absurd-Stability Argument

P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!

LOL :P I love it

The problem though, is that it can be dismantled at the very first premise - "The natural world seems to work via cause and effect", which...while true...can't actually be used as a premise in a logical argument, because "seems to" doesn't neccesarily equate to "does"

We could change that premise to either a deductive one (The world works in cause and effect) or extremely strong induction ([All empirical evidence points towards] the existence of cause and effect). Either way, we get past this true problem you presented.

Premise eight can be said to undermine the entire argument, however, as:

P1* - Conscious beings are more unstable than a tetrahedral shape is stable.
C1* - Therefore, a tetrahedral conscious being is more unstable than not.
C2* - Therefore, a tetrahedral conscious being is less stable than a tetrahedral unconscious being.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:10:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:40:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:04:34 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/4/2013 2:54:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

The Absurd-Stability Argument

P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!

LOL :P I love it


The problem though, is that it can be dismantled at the very first premise - "The natural world seems to work via cause and effect", which...while true...can't actually be used as a premise in a logical argument, because "seems to" doesn't neccesarily equate to "does"

We could change that premise to either a deductive one (The world works in cause and effect) or extremely strong induction ([All empirical evidence points towards] the existence of cause and effect). Either way, we get past this true problem you presented.

Premise eight can be said to undermine the entire argument, however, as:

P1* - Conscious beings are more unstable than a tetrahedral shape is stable.
C1* - Therefore, a tetrahedral conscious being is more unstable than not.
C2* - Therefore, a tetrahedral conscious being is less stable than a tetrahedral unconscious being.

Ah yes, but if the stability was flawed in some way, the shape would just fail, where as a conscious being could adjust it so that the stability doesn't collapse.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:12:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also I didn't want to make a sweeping statement about cause and effect because of things at the quantum level, I didn't know if people would use them as counter-examples.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:38:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stability isn't binary but a gradient. A square is less stable than a triangle, but a square isn't a shape that necessarily collapses in all contexts.

Also I just pinned down another problem in the whole argument: it equivocates on the meaning of stable. Needed the second glance to work it out (I recognised it was an ontology problem but couldn't pin it), but stable means different things in the context of abstract squares and the universe proper. Bleh.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:45:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:38:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Stability isn't binary but a gradient. A square is less stable than a triangle, but a square isn't a shape that necessarily collapses in all contexts.

Higher stability in all contexts is important here.


Also I just pinned down another problem in the whole argument: it equivocates on the meaning of stable. Needed the second glance to work it out (I recognised it was an ontology problem but couldn't pin it), but stable means different things in the context of abstract squares and the universe proper. Bleh.

Awhhh no wayy. I think you're right. :P
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:45:39 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:38:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Stability isn't binary but a gradient. A square is less stable than a triangle, but a square isn't a shape that necessarily collapses in all contexts.

Higher stability in all contexts is important here.

A triangle holds no stability in a distance relationship, I can tell you that.


Also I just pinned down another problem in the whole argument: it equivocates on the meaning of stable. Needed the second glance to work it out (I recognised it was an ontology problem but couldn't pin it), but stable means different things in the context of abstract squares and the universe proper. Bleh.

Awhhh no wayy. I think you're right. :P

I imagine this is sarcasm, but I had the Russell problem of "I know the argument is wrong, I just can't figure out where...oh well don't care move on to drinking". :D
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:14:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:08:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:45:39 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:38:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Stability isn't binary but a gradient. A square is less stable than a triangle, but a square isn't a shape that necessarily collapses in all contexts.

Higher stability in all contexts is important here.

A triangle holds no stability in a distance relationship, I can tell you that.

What does that mean? lol



Also I just pinned down another problem in the whole argument: it equivocates on the meaning of stable. Needed the second glance to work it out (I recognised it was an ontology problem but couldn't pin it), but stable means different things in the context of abstract squares and the universe proper. Bleh.

Awhhh no wayy. I think you're right. :P

I imagine this is sarcasm, but I had the Russell problem of "I know the argument is wrong, I just can't figure out where...oh well don't care move on to drinking". :D

Nahh. I mean, I made the argument and knew I was stretching the definition of stability, but I guess it could work across like that. ;)

Maybe physical stability in the transcendent realm is stability in the universal rules in our realm... ;)
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:26:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:14:31 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 1:08:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:45:39 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:38:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Stability isn't binary but a gradient. A square is less stable than a triangle, but a square isn't a shape that necessarily collapses in all contexts.

Higher stability in all contexts is important here.

A triangle holds no stability in a distance relationship, I can tell you that.

What does that mean? lol

Whoops! This ought to make more sense! A triangle is not good at holding down a long distance relationship.



Also I just pinned down another problem in the whole argument: it equivocates on the meaning of stable. Needed the second glance to work it out (I recognised it was an ontology problem but couldn't pin it), but stable means different things in the context of abstract squares and the universe proper. Bleh.

Awhhh no wayy. I think you're right. :P

I imagine this is sarcasm, but I had the Russell problem of "I know the argument is wrong, I just can't figure out where...oh well don't care move on to drinking". :D

Nahh. I mean, I made the argument and knew I was stretching the definition of stability, but I guess it could work across like that. ;)

Maybe physical stability in the transcendent realm is stability in the universal rules in our realm... ;)

This seems to beg the question: why is there a link between a triangle being able to stand upright under pressure and the ability for one to manipulate and create the fundamental matter of the universe? The link is only through linguistics, which is arbitrary to begin with. Unfortunately, as I rather like this argument.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:39:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:26:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/4/2013 1:14:31 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 1:08:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:45:39 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:38:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Stability isn't binary but a gradient. A square is less stable than a triangle, but a square isn't a shape that necessarily collapses in all contexts.

Higher stability in all contexts is important here.

A triangle holds no stability in a distance relationship, I can tell you that.

What does that mean? lol

Whoops! This ought to make more sense! A triangle is not good at holding down a long distance relationship.



Also I just pinned down another problem in the whole argument: it equivocates on the meaning of stable. Needed the second glance to work it out (I recognised it was an ontology problem but couldn't pin it), but stable means different things in the context of abstract squares and the universe proper. Bleh.

Awhhh no wayy. I think you're right. :P

I imagine this is sarcasm, but I had the Russell problem of "I know the argument is wrong, I just can't figure out where...oh well don't care move on to drinking". :D

Nahh. I mean, I made the argument and knew I was stretching the definition of stability, but I guess it could work across like that. ;)

Maybe physical stability in the transcendent realm is stability in the universal rules in our realm... ;)

This seems to beg the question: why is there a link between a triangle being able to stand upright under pressure and the ability for one to manipulate and create the fundamental matter of the universe? The link is only through linguistics, which is arbitrary to begin with. Unfortunately, as I rather like this argument.

I'll work on it. Considering this argument is intrinsically bs, it'll have to probably be w smartly worded bs link.

Maybe if the laws rely on the opposition from external pressures in the transcendent plane above? Pretty much all of this would be assumption/guess work.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:39:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:38:44 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/4/2013 5:19:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 4:33:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.
Step 1: Apart from your imagination, where's your evidence for a Supernatural Creator?

And what other kind of creator than a stupid or mean one would intentionally create delusions.

The same one who buried fake dinosaur fossils in the ground to test our faith :P

Basically, God seems to run around messing with us and singing "TROLLOLOLOLOLOL!"

Lol, certainly seems that way sometimes all right. However, maybe we're all God - His doubts, fears, love, etc. - attempting to achieve harmony. That would leave the bad of the world forgivable, wouldn't it? It'd really bring it home, no? Maybe you should just take a little responsibility.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, it seems a little self-righteous to assume that if God exists it can only be as something malevolent.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
fyi calling out others on their beliefs is major bad karma
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.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:54:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:39:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:38:44 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/4/2013 5:19:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 4:33:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.
Step 1: Apart from your imagination, where's your evidence for a Supernatural Creator?

And what other kind of creator than a stupid or mean one would intentionally create delusions.

The same one who buried fake dinosaur fossils in the ground to test our faith :P

Basically, God seems to run around messing with us and singing "TROLLOLOLOLOLOL!"

Lol, certainly seems that way sometimes all right. However, maybe we're all God - His doubts, fears, love, etc. - attempting to achieve harmony. That would leave the bad of the world forgivable, wouldn't it? It'd really bring it home, no? Maybe you should just take a little responsibility.

Why would that be "God"?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:51:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 2:50:47 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Argument means that no one has the truth to understand the delusion we exist in.

Whatever you see can change into something totally different such as the place in New York where the Twin Towers were built in the 1960's and 70's.

Take your six year old child to this place and try explain to him how two tall towers once stood above all other buildings. If this child didn't know anything about the destruction of these buildings, he would have to believe your story or walk away in disbelief.

If your child doesn't believe your story, he may begin arguing with you that it was impossible that two tall buildings were there at one time.

What would you say to him if he said this?

Would you try argue with your six year old or accept his disbelief?

Would you go buy him a book with pictures of the twin towers in it and try convince him that those pictures were taken while they still existed?

Would a picture be enough proof to make this child believe that there were two tall buildings in New York at one time? Or would you have to find a story about the 9/11 attacks that caused the destruction of these buildings?

After the child reads about the 9/11 attacks, what would you say if the child told you he didn't believe the 9/11 attacks caused the Twin Towers to be destroyed and that they were actually imploded by a demo crew?

Would you begin to argue with the child about who was responsible about destroying the Twin Towers or would you tell him that you don't know what happened.

We are living in a world created by God to deceive us from who we truly are and who He is. By having the Twin Towers destroyed, God caused a lot of confusion in the minds of His people. It makes no difference to His people who done it because it's the effect of keeping His people focused on this delusion that he wanted to accomplish in the first place.

God's delusion causes us to believe we have decisions to make but we should know that this is untrue by flipping a coin to see whether it lands with heads up or tails up. Some gamblers believe they can beat the odds by flipping the coin from different angles or from different heights but after tossing it hundreds of times, they still can't predict whether it will land on heads or tails, even when it's proven that it will land at least 50 % of the time on either heads or tails.

So argument comes from not knowing the Truth that God created this delusion to deceive His people. As long as you believe in this world, you are deceived of who planned this deluded world.

Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.

No, that's just plain silly. If a child asserts it is "impossible" that two tall buildings once stood there, it's a pretty simple exercise to present that child with other examples of similar tall buildings in order to demonstrate that yes, it is possible that tall buildings exist and - therefore any claim that it is impossible for two buildings to have been standing in a location is logically invalid (doesn't matter if the person is only 6, bad logic is bad logic)

Now, can you use that same process to demonstrate the existence of the Creator of the universe? It's easy, just point out an example of another Creator who is currently busy breating another universe, so we can see that such a thing exists.

Your arguing against the Truth. You're not going to win this argument because it's impossible.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:54:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 2:54:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 2:50:47 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:12:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Argument means that no one has the truth to understand the delusion we exist in.

Whatever you see can change into something totally different such as the place in New York where the Twin Towers were built in the 1960's and 70's.

Take your six year old child to this place and try explain to him how two tall towers once stood above all other buildings. If this child didn't know anything about the destruction of these buildings, he would have to believe your story or walk away in disbelief.

If your child doesn't believe your story, he may begin arguing with you that it was impossible that two tall buildings were there at one time.

What would you say to him if he said this?

Would you try argue with your six year old or accept his disbelief?

Would you go buy him a book with pictures of the twin towers in it and try convince him that those pictures were taken while they still existed?

Would a picture be enough proof to make this child believe that there were two tall buildings in New York at one time? Or would you have to find a story about the 9/11 attacks that caused the destruction of these buildings?

After the child reads about the 9/11 attacks, what would you say if the child told you he didn't believe the 9/11 attacks caused the Twin Towers to be destroyed and that they were actually imploded by a demo crew?

Would you begin to argue with the child about who was responsible about destroying the Twin Towers or would you tell him that you don't know what happened.

We are living in a world created by God to deceive us from who we truly are and who He is. By having the Twin Towers destroyed, God caused a lot of confusion in the minds of His people. It makes no difference to His people who done it because it's the effect of keeping His people focused on this delusion that he wanted to accomplish in the first place.

God's delusion causes us to believe we have decisions to make but we should know that this is untrue by flipping a coin to see whether it lands with heads up or tails up. Some gamblers believe they can beat the odds by flipping the coin from different angles or from different heights but after tossing it hundreds of times, they still can't predict whether it will land on heads or tails, even when it's proven that it will land at least 50 % of the time on either heads or tails.

So argument comes from not knowing the Truth that God created this delusion to deceive His people. As long as you believe in this world, you are deceived of who planned this deluded world.

Now lets see you argue with our Creator and why he caused this delusion.

No, that's just plain silly. If a child asserts it is "impossible" that two tall buildings once stood there, it's a pretty simple exercise to present that child with other examples of similar tall buildings in order to demonstrate that yes, it is possible that tall buildings exist and - therefore any claim that it is impossible for two buildings to have been standing in a location is logically invalid (doesn't matter if the person is only 6, bad logic is bad logic)

Now, can you use that same process to demonstrate the existence of the Creator of the universe? It's easy, just point out an example of another Creator who is currently busy breating another universe, so we can see that such a thing exists.


The Absurd-Stability Argument


P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!

A theory is a lie based on many lies that are observed by liars.