kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
"Nones" will likely encompass mostly people who don't know enough doctrine to take a denominational position but instead are an even worse than usual brand of mushy-headed, Joel Osteen/Rick Warren style feel-good Christians that will do what their megachurch tells them to do.
What do you call a person who hates Yahweh but loves Jesus?
Illiterate.
Uh....
Gnostic?
That's sorta Gnosticism's deal.
Gnostics praise Jesus as a bringer of truth and knowledge, and consider Yahweh a horrible creature they call the "Demiurge" who keeps humanity from truth.
Seriously.
Look it up!
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by many modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
Correct. God does not exist, nor is he a being. God IS Being. This is, again, the traditional christian scholastic definition of God (essentia deum est existenia). God does not exist, for God IS existence.
This sounds like pantheism.
No, because pantheism is that everything is god, in the Spinozian sense it can be stated that every being is God under an essential knowable attribute. God is not any being. He is Being.
Correct, which is why early I said that it should be more probably stated "omniscience is Being" and "omnipresence is Being."
...
And? What's the point? I could just as easily say "Unicorn is Being." That doesn't mean that unicorns actually exist.
Well what is your ontology? Because I can say a lot of things about unicorns which are true. It is also hard to talk about something which doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, how else could we talk about it? That would be like talking about something which doesn't exist, like a table which violates the law of the excluded middle.
Oh sure, we can recognize that unicorns have one horn, look like horses, etc. Doesn't make them real. Similarly, just because we can imagine God doesn't make God real.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
He was the Kanye West of ancient Palestine.
Srsly.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
Correct. God does not exist, nor is he a being. God IS Being. This is, again, the traditional christian scholastic definition of God (essentia deum est existenia). God does not exist, for God IS existence.
You're redefining God now.
be: To have objective existence.
being: The quality or state of having existence.
god: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship
Thus, using standard, English definitions for your post, along with the Almighty Power of Find/Replace:
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship does not exist
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship does not exhibit the quality of state of having existence.
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship == the quality or state of having existence.
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship does not exist, for a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship IS existence.
As you can see, using non-moon-language, you are speaking gibberish. Though, it's possible you've just provided evidence that the story of Babel was true. :P
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by many modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
Oh I thought I was the only one.
My entire impression of the NT, even when I was a Christian, was that Jesus really was a dick. He was quite the asshole. To everyone, really.
His manner of sophistry is to enter a discussion unrelated to his personal philosophy and espouse it, intentionally obfuscating the nature of the discussion by utilizing terminology that the discussion is currently talking about (God, in this case) but having his own separate definition for it that functions exclusively for his purposes.
He does this so he can argue with people about what he thinks without them realizing what the fuck he's talking about until they get him to openly define his word usage. When he does, it's made clear he's utilizing his own definitions of words and expects you to use them his way, too.
Why he does this seems to be nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by many modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
Oh I thought I was the only one.
My entire impression of the NT, even when I was a Christian, was that Jesus really was a dick. He was quite the asshole. To everyone, really.
Yep.
Hardly the worst person in all of history, but I wouldn't invite him to my birthday party.
Absolutely not. You are a being. God is not a being. God is the Being of beings.
God is being.
But he's not a being.
Ahh, I'm getting that thing where you look at a word too long and it's meaning starts to break down. I forget what it's called. Aphasia, maybe? They talk about it on Radio Lab every now and then.
Melkster on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by many modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
Oh I thought I was the only one.
My entire impression of the NT, even when I was a Christian, was that Jesus really was a dick. He was quite the asshole. To everyone, really.
Yep.
Hardly the worst person in all of history, but I wouldn't invite him to my birthday party.
I would.
But then again, I'm kind of a dick too. And so are my friends. Jesus would probably fit in quite well.
And omg, I would love for him to play Battlestar Galatica: The Board Game with us. He would be an amazing Gaius Baltar.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
Error. Unicorns do not exist. The CONCEPT of Unicorns exist. Bit of a big difference, there.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
Error. Unicorns do not exist. The CONCEPT of Unicorns exist. Bit of a big difference, there.
That's what you all say. But you'll never convince me that Uncle Walt's hole-riddled corpse was made that way by bullets.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
Error. Unicorns do not exist. The CONCEPT of Unicorns exist. Bit of a big difference, there.
That's what you all say. But you'll never convince me that Uncle Walt's hole-riddled corpse was made that way by bullets.
And I respect your Faith, and so will allow you your Homicidal Unicorn theory.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
Yeaaah... Once you've started saying that Unicorns exist and yet aren't real, you've stepped out of the common world we all live in and have moved ... elsewhere. Into fantasy land, where squares are round and the moon is made of happy.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
Yeaaah... Once you've started saying that Unicorns exist and yet aren't real, you've stepped out of the common world we all live in and have moved ... elsewhere. Into fantasy land, where squares are round and the moon is made of happy.
Houn already caught that flaw, yeah. Podly isn't distinguishing between a thing and the idea of that thing.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
Yeaaah... Once you've started saying that Unicorns exist and yet aren't real, you've stepped out of the common world we all live in and have moved ... elsewhere. Into fantasy land, where squares are round and the moon is made of happy.
Houn already caught that flaw, yeah. Podly isn't distinguishing between a thing and the idea of that thing.
Damnit, you people type fast.
Some of us are simultaneously working* too, I'll have you know!
Oh, I'm "working". Or, at least, I am in a state of being at work. But not necessarily Being at work. Work may be Being, though. I'm still working that part out. At work.
Oh, I'm "working". Or, at least, I am in a state of being at work. But not necessarily Being at work. Work may be Being, though. I'm still working that part out. At work.
Oh, I'm "working". Or, at least, I am in a state of being at work. But not necessarily Being at work. Work may be Being, though. I'm still working that part out. At work.
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
Sophistry
If I am to be accused of being a sophist, it is only because I use terms in defined wasy as much as possible, and aknowledge the difficulty of tarrying with terms like being. Pony, your accusation to me rings hollow, if only because of your sheer ignorance of western philosophy. Take, for instance, the distincion between reality and existence. There is 300 years of philosophical precedence to these terms, specifically since Kant's categories. If you look in the dictionary, reality and existence might appear as synonyms. This is not philosophically rigorous, however, and I suspect that desire of certain people to make them so reflects more upon the fears of their own ineptitude concerning formal philosphical distincions. Reality deals with predication, categorical predicaion, to be precise. It deals with the objectivity of subjects. Existence deals with modality, the possibilty of being, whether something necessarily is the case, and whether something is impossible.
Unicorns are not real. They will never be encountered on earth. However, according to modal logic, it is impossile for unicorns to not exist, and thus is is possible for them to exist. In this modal possibilty, things exist per se, they have being. This is especially true if we extend this to possible worlds. If all possible worlds are in the same way -- that they all share being, and how could they not -- then we must say that it seems likely that horses with horns exist, ad it Is impossible to know how many possible worlds there are.
Of course these concepts are up for debate. But to accuse me of using the words improperly is no more than rabid ignorance, an ignorance which wishes to remain ignorant. To wish to speak of words as used without proper definiton, but rather with lazy and nebulous everyday parlance is willfull ignorance.
A girl tried to get me to go to the student christian group's meeting while I was in my chemistry lab wearing an Iron Maiden T-shirt a couple of weeks ago, I had to struggle not to laugh and be a dick, but I'm not sure that there is a worse person to try and convert than a science student that listens to metal.
Too bad about Nicko McBrain though...
And Dave Mustaine! Honestly, what is with all these metal musicians all the sudden converting to Christianity?
Jesus is fucking metal. Where else do you worship a dude who got nailed to a cross and then shanked?
If I am o be accused of being a sophist, it is only because I use terms in defined way as much as possible, and aknowledge the difficulty of tarrying with terms like being. Pony, your accusation to me rings hollow, if only because of your sheer ignorance of western philosophy. Take, or instance, the distincion between reality and existence. There is 300 years of philosophical precedence doe these terms, specifically since k
Kants categories. If you look in the dictionary, reality and existence might appear as synonyms. This is nor philosophically rigorous, however, and I suspect that re desire of certain people to male them so reflects more upon the fears of their own inepticy concerning formal philosphical distincions. Reality deals with predication, categorical predicaion, to be precise. It deals with the objectivity of subjects. Existence deals with modality, the possibilty of being, whether something necessarily us the case, and whether something is impossible.*
Unicorns are not real. They will never be encountered on earth. However. According to modal logic, it is impossile for unicorns to exist, and thus is is possible for them to exist. In this modal possibilty, things exist per se, they have being. This is especially true if we extend this to possible worlds. If all possible worlds are in the same way -- that they all share being, and how could they not -- then we must say that it seems likely that horses with horns exist, ad it*Is impossible to know how many possible worlds there are.*
Of course these concepts are up for debate. But to accuse me of using the words improperly is no more than rabid ignorance, an ignorance which wishes to remain ignorant. To wish to speak of words as used without proper definiton, but rather with lazy and nebulous everyday parlance Is willfull ignorance.*
Sent from my iPhone
Limed for the only thing that really makes sense in the real world.
In the real world, unicorns are frequently fun to think about and draw pictures of. But they don't exist in the real world. And that's it. That's reality.
I have no idea where you are. You've moved so far past the real world where the rest of us live that what you say has lost most of it's meaning.
Then again... I believe that Heavy has something to say on the subject:
Melkster on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
A girl tried to get me to go to the student christian group's meeting while I was in my chemistry lab wearing an Iron Maiden T-shirt a couple of weeks ago, I had to struggle not to laugh and be a dick, but I'm not sure that there is a worse person to try and convert than a science student that listens to metal.
Too bad about Nicko McBrain though...
And Dave Mustaine! Honestly, what is with all these metal musicians all the sudden converting to Christianity?
Jesus is fucking metal. Where else do you worship a dude who got nailed to a cross and then shanked?
No kidding. He got killed and walked it off.
That is just a pale imitation of Odin getting shanked on a tree in order to gain power.
I like how Podly's counter-point to being called a sophist was "Clearly you aren't educated enough to understand Western Philosophy".
Nice work, Pods. Nice work.
Don't actually refute my points or anything, just belittle my education level and pretend the conversation only exists in the way you define it.
If you spoke Czech and not English, would you be pissed that my argument was couched in a specific language? Would you say that I'm making up definitions? What if I used definitions that weren't contained in Webster's dictionary, which is a descriptivist dictionary which does not intend to define how words ought to be used, but rather record the number of ways in which words are popularly used? No, you wouldn't, and nor should you hear. You could read any major book about ontology or metaphysics and find that more often then not people use the reality/existence modal distinction, but you'd rather just be lazy and assume that I am making stuff up since it caters to your argument.
I like how Podly's counter-point to being called a sophist was "Clearly you aren't educated enough to understand Western Philosophy".
Nice work, Pods. Nice work.
Don't actually refute my points or anything, just belittle my education level and pretend the conversation only exists in the way you define it.
If you spoke Czech and not English, would you be pissed that my argument was couched in a specific language? Would you say that I'm making up definitions? What if I used definitions that weren't contained in Webster's dictionary, which is a descriptivist dictionary which does not intend to define how words ought to be used, but rather record the number of ways in which words are popularly used? No, you wouldn't, and nor should you hear. You could read any major book about ontology or metaphysics and find that more often then not people use the reality/existence modal distinction, but you'd rather just be lazy and assume that I am making stuff up since it caters to your argument.
And yet, I'm clearly not the only person who finds your semantical pedantry irritating and non-conductive to discourse.
How many times, Podly, how many times do you find yourself arguing with someone on here not about what they are saying, but how they are saying it?
How many times, in this very thread even, do you find yourself saying "hold on, that's not what that word means!" instead of actually disputing a person's basic point?
Look at the level of criticism you are getting. Look at the sort of criticism you are getting, not just from myself but from others. People are questioning your very grip on reality. Why? Because you are so engrossed in semantics games that you are unable to converse with people on a level not defined by how you want to use the words people are using.
Pods, if I recall correctly, didn't you have a big ole thread not too long ago about God and existence where you had rolling, multi-page arguments with people about the existence of God that was not hinged on actual questions of being, but rather on whether people understood what you meant by saying "God"?
Podly, when someone says "God doesn't exist" and your response is "Actually, clearly God does exist because you can think about the concept of God therefore the idea of God exists"
That's not philosophy, son.
That's sophistry. That's obfuscating a person's point on purpose just so you can argue with them and make yourself look more educated and intelligent. It's masturbatory.
What, after all, was your rebuttal to what I said about you earlier? Not "You are wrong Pony, and this is why..." but "Clearly Pony, you lack the educated in Western Philosophy to understand these things".
Instead of attacking my argument, you attacked my education level. Instead of saying "your arguments are fallacious and here is why" you said "Your arguments are hollow because you are ignorant".
Good job, Pods.
You're a credit to american philosophical academia.
Posts
i am baffled by this
he told me to ask about it in the thread
so here i am, doing that
I was making light of the fact that Jesus, as described in the NT, is kind of a prick by many modern standards. Not entirely a prick, but still kind of a prick.
He was the Kanye West of ancient Palestine.
So, am I god?
I am a being after all.
Oh sure, we can recognize that unicorns have one horn, look like horses, etc. Doesn't make them real. Similarly, just because we can imagine God doesn't make God real.
I see above that you've finally made the positive statement that God is existence. I think that's why everyone is jumping on you for semantic masturbation, Podly. Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists). However, to lay claim to this reality as "God" is unjustifiable without proof or evidence, especially when there's no evidence that reality is self-aware, had a son who is also him (to pick on the Catholic god), etc. Well, you can justify it to yourself as "faith," maybe, but that means diddly to anyone who's not you.
Srsly.
Absolutely not. You are a being. God is not a being. God is the Being of beings.
You're redefining God now.
be: To have objective existence.
being: The quality or state of having existence.
god: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship
Thus, using standard, English definitions for your post, along with the Almighty Power of Find/Replace:
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship does not exist
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship does not exhibit the quality of state of having existence.
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship == the quality or state of having existence.
- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship does not exist, for a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship IS existence.
As you can see, using non-moon-language, you are speaking gibberish. Though, it's possible you've just provided evidence that the story of Babel was true. :P
Oh I thought I was the only one.
My entire impression of the NT, even when I was a Christian, was that Jesus really was a dick. He was quite the asshole. To everyone, really.
His manner of sophistry is to enter a discussion unrelated to his personal philosophy and espouse it, intentionally obfuscating the nature of the discussion by utilizing terminology that the discussion is currently talking about (God, in this case) but having his own separate definition for it that functions exclusively for his purposes.
He does this so he can argue with people about what he thinks without them realizing what the fuck he's talking about until they get him to openly define his word usage. When he does, it's made clear he's utilizing his own definitions of words and expects you to use them his way, too.
Why he does this seems to be nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
Sophistry, I say.
Yep.
Hardly the worst person in all of history, but I wouldn't invite him to my birthday party.
--
Pony: I tend to assume defense mechanism.
God is being.
But he's not a being.
Ahh, I'm getting that thing where you look at a word too long and it's meaning starts to break down. I forget what it's called. Aphasia, maybe? They talk about it on Radio Lab every now and then.
Be careful with your words. Reality is not Existence. Reality, as is traditionally used since Kant, is the sum of predications categorically made. Existence is the mode of possibility. As such, God and Unicorns are not real, but nevertheless exist. The last two are, or course, debatable, but nevertheless be careful with your terminology.
And I fully recognize the salient leap that I make, and I do not expect it to be convincing as an argument. However, I have never met a good argument that accounted for the ontotheological constitution of western metaphysics either.
I would.
But then again, I'm kind of a dick too. And so are my friends. Jesus would probably fit in quite well.
And omg, I would love for him to play Battlestar Galatica: The Board Game with us. He would be an amazing Gaius Baltar.
Calls himself a philosophy student. That's amusing.
Error. Unicorns do not exist. The CONCEPT of Unicorns exist. Bit of a big difference, there.
Bastard. You just made me pop my eardrum trying not to laugh at work.
That's what you all say. But you'll never convince me that Uncle Walt's hole-riddled corpse was made that way by bullets.
And I respect your Faith, and so will allow you your Homicidal Unicorn theory.
Yeaaah... Once you've started saying that Unicorns exist and yet aren't real, you've stepped out of the common world we all live in and have moved ... elsewhere. Into fantasy land, where squares are round and the moon is made of happy.
Houn already caught that flaw, yeah. Podly isn't distinguishing between a thing and the idea of that thing.
Damnit, you people type fast.
Some of us are simultaneously working* too, I'll have you know!
*
That is gold.
If I am to be accused of being a sophist, it is only because I use terms in defined wasy as much as possible, and aknowledge the difficulty of tarrying with terms like being. Pony, your accusation to me rings hollow, if only because of your sheer ignorance of western philosophy. Take, for instance, the distincion between reality and existence. There is 300 years of philosophical precedence to these terms, specifically since Kant's categories. If you look in the dictionary, reality and existence might appear as synonyms. This is not philosophically rigorous, however, and I suspect that desire of certain people to make them so reflects more upon the fears of their own ineptitude concerning formal philosphical distincions. Reality deals with predication, categorical predicaion, to be precise. It deals with the objectivity of subjects. Existence deals with modality, the possibilty of being, whether something necessarily is the case, and whether something is impossible.
Unicorns are not real. They will never be encountered on earth. However, according to modal logic, it is impossile for unicorns to not exist, and thus is is possible for them to exist. In this modal possibilty, things exist per se, they have being. This is especially true if we extend this to possible worlds. If all possible worlds are in the same way -- that they all share being, and how could they not -- then we must say that it seems likely that horses with horns exist, ad it Is impossible to know how many possible worlds there are.
Of course these concepts are up for debate. But to accuse me of using the words improperly is no more than rabid ignorance, an ignorance which wishes to remain ignorant. To wish to speak of words as used without proper definiton, but rather with lazy and nebulous everyday parlance is willfull ignorance.
Sent from my iPhone
No kidding. He got killed and walked it off.
Limed for the only thing that really makes sense in the real world.
In the real world, unicorns are frequently fun to think about and draw pictures of. But they don't exist in the real world. And that's it. That's reality.
I have no idea where you are. You've moved so far past the real world where the rest of us live that what you say has lost most of it's meaning.
Then again... I believe that Heavy has something to say on the subject:
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A southerner.
Nah, Southerners are the people who don't find irony in demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible despite being illiterate.
Nice work, Pods. Nice work.
Don't actually refute my points or anything, just belittle my education level and pretend the conversation only exists in the way you define it.
If you spoke Czech and not English, would you be pissed that my argument was couched in a specific language? Would you say that I'm making up definitions? What if I used definitions that weren't contained in Webster's dictionary, which is a descriptivist dictionary which does not intend to define how words ought to be used, but rather record the number of ways in which words are popularly used? No, you wouldn't, and nor should you hear. You could read any major book about ontology or metaphysics and find that more often then not people use the reality/existence modal distinction, but you'd rather just be lazy and assume that I am making stuff up since it caters to your argument.
And yet, I'm clearly not the only person who finds your semantical pedantry irritating and non-conductive to discourse.
How many times, Podly, how many times do you find yourself arguing with someone on here not about what they are saying, but how they are saying it?
How many times, in this very thread even, do you find yourself saying "hold on, that's not what that word means!" instead of actually disputing a person's basic point?
Look at the level of criticism you are getting. Look at the sort of criticism you are getting, not just from myself but from others. People are questioning your very grip on reality. Why? Because you are so engrossed in semantics games that you are unable to converse with people on a level not defined by how you want to use the words people are using.
Pods, if I recall correctly, didn't you have a big ole thread not too long ago about God and existence where you had rolling, multi-page arguments with people about the existence of God that was not hinged on actual questions of being, but rather on whether people understood what you meant by saying "God"?
Podly, when someone says "God doesn't exist" and your response is "Actually, clearly God does exist because you can think about the concept of God therefore the idea of God exists"
That's not philosophy, son.
That's sophistry. That's obfuscating a person's point on purpose just so you can argue with them and make yourself look more educated and intelligent. It's masturbatory.
What, after all, was your rebuttal to what I said about you earlier? Not "You are wrong Pony, and this is why..." but "Clearly Pony, you lack the educated in Western Philosophy to understand these things".
Instead of attacking my argument, you attacked my education level. Instead of saying "your arguments are fallacious and here is why" you said "Your arguments are hollow because you are ignorant".
Good job, Pods.
You're a credit to american philosophical academia.