Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe last time we had a lengthy thread about a few words I said that you took out of context and misinterpreted, you we soundly whipped. There is no need to repeat. I have lost interest in making fun of you. Lets have a reasonable, rational discussion.
So 'I don't lie' means you have lied in the past?
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is perfectly reasonable for me to ask if you have ever lied when you make a claim that you don't lie.
The last time we had a lengthy thread about a few words I said that you took out of context and misinterpreted, you we soundly whipped. There is no need to repeat. I have lost interest in making fun of you. Lets have a reasonable, rational discussion.
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, it is ridiculous to ask such a stupid question. Instead you should ask yourself whether or not you understood what I said and the context in which I said it. Now please get back to the topic at hand, or do you accept that evolution brought about morality?
It is perfectly reasonable for me to ask if you have ever lied when you make a claim that you don't lie.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy don't we simply ask FMJ what his standard of truth is on the proposition that evolution brought about morality?
No, it is ridiculous to ask such a stupid question. Instead you should ask yourself whether or not you understood what I said and the context in which I said it. Now please get back to the topic at hand, or do you accept that evolution brought about morality?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Well, I see two standards being relied on or defended, admittedly or not: argument from personal incredulity, and argument from (scriptural) authority.
Why don't we simply ask FMJ what his standard of truth is on the proposition that evolution brought about morality?
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWho is it who does that? It's slightly annoying as I can't tell if I have disapproval from a real human being who actually read my post and disagrees with it or it's just the normal idiot who thumbs down depending on the username.
He will answer with a question. And not a very good one.
Edit - And thumb down my post.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTry proposing, officially, on 'Site Ideas', that Thumbs Down be changed so they are no longer anonymous and watch Suzianne go absolutely spare and threaten to leave the site. 😉
Who is it who does that? It's slightly annoying as I can't tell if I have disapproval from a real human being who actually read my post and disagrees with it or it's just the normal idiot who thumbs down depending on the username.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course asking a question which puts anything you say under scrutiny is 'ridiculous' to you. In what possible context could 'I do not lie' mean you have lied in the past?
No, it is ridiculous to ask such a stupid question. Instead you should ask yourself whether or not you understood what I said and the context in which I said it. Now please get back to the topic at hand, or do you accept that evolution brought about morality?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
tw: I do not lie, nor deliberately falsely accuse you of lying.
I told you to QUOTE the LIE that I told as a deliberate untruth. As I work my way through this response, I'll see if you produced the lie I wrote by which you called me a liar.
tw: You on the other hand have several times deliberately and maliciously lied about me and been rude about me solely for the purpose of being evil (and you have admitted as such, without apology).
So far, no production of the lie.
i count you fraudulent in pretending to be genuinely interested in adding to the body human understanding about truth and existence. You are not. You are interested in a religious, dogmatic, narrow minded atheism.
And what STYLE of communication WOULD you approve of here?
I would approve of:
1. a more civil conversation.
2. less deliberate dishonest tactics.
Still not quotation of the deliberate LIE I wrote.
While you accuse me of hiding behind others' quotations I think you hide behind minute technical and de minimus details in order to impress others that on large issues you must be trusted to be right.
You demonstrate that you, like a fanatical speciaist, know more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing.
3. less attribution of ideas to me that you believe I hold but that I have not stated I hold.
If you play sparse on what you state and I think someone else has presented essentially the tendency of your concepts, i may quote someone else.
The advantage of being sparse is that it is hard for people to pin you down and you can always say other published statements are not your own thoughts.
me:
Quoting indicates cowardice now ?
No, that is clearly not what I said. If it is not clear what I said, please ask and I will clarify.
me: So without physical storage there is no information ?
Correct. But not something I was saying. It isn't particularly relevant.
CLARIFY why it is not particularly RELEVANT.
You are approaching an infinite regress of information flow and physical storage.
That requires more "faith" then I am able to have.
Its relevant to the origin of everything.
And that is relevant to the topic Evolution Brought About Morality?
Its a chicken and egg problem. If someone legitimately asked which came first the chicken or the egg - "Its not particularly relevant" would sound like a avoidance of having to deal with the problem - 'Well, its not particularly relevant."
What is relevant, is:
1. that information can be physically stored.
To you who want to avoid the problem of origins the dodge "Its not particularly relevant"
may be a good tactic to not have to FACE the problem.
It seems to me that know-how, concept, teleonomy, or exogenous information went
into the origin of life, and even matter.
The storage devices i can think of off hand all were preceded by design of the properties of those devices. Information went into the creation of the nature of the storage device so that storage could be carried out successfully.
I don't stop at a shrug "I don't know how it all got started" even if it sounds very humble to say so. You want a beginningless circle of information - storage - information - storage - information - storage as a circular infinite regress. That is logically incoherent.
2. but it is still information, not a physical object.
Any storage medium had to be suited to do the job. That means some descriptive specifications. That means some information.
I don't have enough faith to reason that a circular infinity of information - storage -information - storage has existed. An atheist may shrug it off with "Its not particularly relevant" or " I told you, I just don't know the origin of all this ".
I don't take that as a sincere desire to add to man's understanding of truth even if you done on a white laboratory coat. The acknowledgement of a intelligent Creator adds to man's understanding of the nature of the universe. That's where your first information was so any physical storage medium could possibly get started to exist.
3. it cannot necessarily be understood by looking at the individual atoms.
4. information pervades all physical systems and hence 'arises' at all times, everywhere in all physical systems.
If there is no bottom floor i don't know how anything could get started "arising".
I don't believe in your infinite arising of information as process without beginning.
me:
Flow of information implies to me a flow FROM point A to point B. Flow means to me transfer or movement.
It means the same to me.
me:
Do you think the material universe was eternally in existence ?
I am sure I have told you my beliefs on that in the past: I simply do not know.
Yes, i am certain that this little detail you have avoided before with saying "I don't know."
I think your agnosticism cloaks a strongest possible avoidance of admitting the existence of God. There's really not much more to it.
me:
If you believe so then you must believe in an infinite regress of information flow.
I believe that is one possibility.
i want to know if the absence of a physical storage medium means information cannot exist. Yes or No would be helpful.
That depends on how you define 'physical storage medium'.
Anything that exists in the universe will due for now.
Matter, fields, energy, quantum sub atomic particles, larger super structures, black holes, ANYTHING in the universe you would like to refer to.
I do believe information must be stored.
Why? Clarify.
There must be some medium. All mediums I know of are physical. I am not sure whether mediums that are not part of this universe exist or whether if they did exist they would be called 'physical'.
i want to know if matter is eternal or came into being.
I can't help you there. I am also certain that nobody can help you there as there simply isn't enough evidence either way at this point.
You can't help me. But there are some other thinkers who CAN.
Othesr can HELP ME. Thanks anyway. I think if you wanted some help they could help you as well - if you wanted help.
And if I quoted some, I don't feel "argument from authority" or some other complaint negates the fact that they do HELP here.
That is all the time I have now.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou continue to be rude and insist on attributing a view to me that I have clearly stated I do not hold.
That is all the time I have now.
Since you apparently have no interest in a civil discussion and I have no interest in a non-civil one, I think I will end it here.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere are many possible contexts including the one in this thread. I will not bother explaining it to you because it is clear you don't actually wish to learn, you just wish to troll. Have fun.
Of course asking a question which puts anything you say under scrutiny is 'ridiculous' to you. In what possible context could 'I do not lie' mean you have lied in the past?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy am I not surprised after asking you to clarify things ?
You continue to be rude and insist on attributing a view to me that I have clearly stated I do not hold.
Since you apparently have no interest in a civil discussion and I have no interest in a non-civil one, I think I will end it here.
So adieu.
No sweat off my back.
12 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou asked me to clarify after first telling me what I wanted, and what I believe, and all sorts of other things about my thoughts that I had explicitly stated I do not believe or think. There is no point clarifying to someone who ignores the answers.
Why am I not surprised after asking you to clarify things ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Sep 16
1 edit
So someone else can address this question:
If the underlying process of life - Evolution, has no purpose (as most militant atheistic evos say) HOW could it produce any living being with an inherent purpose ?
The process is without purpose.
How can the effect of the process be bestowed with any purpose ?