|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2007 : 13:22:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude,
We (you and I) have not been discussing whether or not god exists. We both agree on this point. God probably does not exist and there is no reason to assume something exists without evidence. But we are discussing whether are not a word is gibberish. That word is supernatural, and even if no supernatural thing exists that has nothing to do with whether a word that describes those non-existent (mental) things is gibberish. Why? Because this thread has from the OP been about the possiblity of a supernatural thing (so the context is set in possibilities not realities), and it will always remain a possibility, one that can be described and categorized as supernatural. The fact that we are even having this discussion makes the word meaningful between us, or one of us would constantly be saying "What does supernatural mean! I don't even know what you are talking about when you use that word." I don't care about arguments about god's non-existence, I want to hear an argument for why supernatural must be gibberish in this context [from OP] and the way Baxter used it. Otherwise you called bullshit on a word that was not bullshit, and should admit it. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 13:30:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Alternative medicine does not describe non-medicine. That is the point.
But it doesn't describe medicine either, and that's the more important point.
Your absolutely right. Alternative medicine is not medicine and that is a mis-nomer. However, since the supporters call it alternative medicine and treatment, we simply use the word in a way that does not follow from its definition, or the sum of its parts. I would agree that they should not be allowed to call it medicine, but semantics are not the meat of the debate and so we simply work off of the redacted definition. The same as the words atheist and agnostic can mean something to some other than the definition or sum of their parts. So in the god debate we simply set a definition and then move onto the meat. I agree with you on it not being medicine though, and that it can be more accurately labeled, I like the term Total Bullshit. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 15:53:20 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis said:
quote:
You keep admitting that something can exist outside of the definition of nature.
That is a strawman of your creation. I will not dignify it with further response.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 21:39:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Neurosis said:
quote:
You keep admitting that something can exist outside of the definition of nature.
That is a strawman of your creation. I will not dignify it with further response.
Well then your are just a dumbass, since the argument is over whether or not supernatural is a word that has meaning in this context. Since supernatural can refer to something that can exist, you have no case. It is really that simple. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 22:14:51 [Permalink]
|
Dude's claims about reality:
“A greater explanation that transcends natural laws is gibberish.”
“Within the context of reality, when describing things that are real, the term "supernatural" has no meaning,"
“The word "supernatural" is used to describe things that exist outside of nature, which is rather self evidently impossible.”
“If a thing exists, it exists in nature.“
Proof offered. None.
Dude's admission that things can exist outside of nature and he cannot prove otherwise which contradicts all of those previous claims about the impossibility of something existing outside of nature.
“The totality of physical reality, exclusive of things mental. That certainly doesn't include anything that could "possibly" exist. It does, however, pretty well cover all things that do exist. “
Dude's claims about the meaning of gibberish.
“[the word supernatural] sounds like speech, but it has no meaning, therefore it is gibberish. It is an invented phrase that has no value in any conversation about real things.”
“If a word has no meaning in a specific contest, then that word can safely be called gibberish, within that context.”
The acceted definition of gibberish is:
describes something which has no merit or makes no sense.
Dude's claims about the context of the thread
The context of the thread is not about those things which are outside human experience but could be natural.
The original context according to Baxter's OP.
“What if one does not follow any religion but does believe that there is some greater explanation for the universe being here. “
And later clarification.
“and by a greater explanation, I'll say that I mean one that transcends natural laws.”
Established definition of nature.
The physical material universe.
Established definition of supernatural.
Outside of the limits of nature, or just outside nature.
Established context of the thread.
The rationality of the belief in something that transcends natural laws.
Established definition of natural laws.
The laws that govern nature and the things within nature.
Established definition of Gibberish (again)
Anything which has no merit in a discussion.
The merit of supernatural is that it describes something that could exist and transcend the natural laws. The context is obviously the rationality of believing in things that transcend natural laws, which can be grouped as supernatural as per our definition. Thus supernatural has meaning and makes sense within the established context. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 22:20:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Neurosis said:
quote:
You keep admitting that something can exist outside of the definition of nature.
That is a strawman of your creation. I will not dignify it with further response.
Why don't you prove something for a change instead of simply stating things with no evidence. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 23:30:04 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis said:
quote:
Dude's admission that things can exist outside of nature
Why don't you stop lying?
You have obviously given up any pretense of rational discourse and your continued use of this strawman is only further evidence of your inherent dishonesty.
When you recant your lies then maybe this conversation can continue, but until then I'll not dignify any of your posts in this thread with any response other than to insist you stop lying.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 12:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Neurosis said:
quote:
Dude's admission that things can exist outside of nature
Why don't you stop lying?
You have obviously given up any pretense of rational discourse and your continued use of this strawman is only further evidence of your inherent dishonesty.
When you recant your lies then maybe this conversation can continue, but until then I'll not dignify any of your posts in this thread with any response other than to insist you stop lying.
Aha! So you admit you are a lying flip flopper. Here I said to you:
quote:
quote:
The word nature does not include all that could possibly exist.
Who said it did? "The totality of physical reality, exclusive of things mental". That certainly doesn't include anything that could "possibly" exist. It does, however, pretty well cover all things that do exist. (your knowledge of their existence is not relevent)
You implied that you never asserted such a thing, which is a lie because you said flat out nature includes all things that can possibly exist. The definition does not, however.
Of course, that is a position of ignorance because you can never know that for sure ever. Then you flip flop claiming that you are not saying that nature includes all things that exist, which it does not necessarily.
The fact is, that supernatural things by any definition of the word in any dictionary can very well exist, and more over, things can definitely exist that are not subject to the natural laws. You asserting otherwise makes you no better than a creationist that insists that god must exist and it is not possible for him not to.
You are the liar and the flip-flopper Dude. You cannot admit a mistake and will hee-haw and contradict yourself twisting knots around your own argument in order to not admit it. How sad. You are no better than GK Paul. You even use his technique of introducing non-relevent arguments, saying that no one has proven the existence of supernatural things. Of course not, but that was totally irrelevent to the definition of gibberish, the only subject of our debate.
Even if the construct was purely mental, it would still be accurately described as something that would, if existent, be superior to the laws of nature. And since it can exist, the OP of this thread was relevent and that was a relevent description of the possible entity we were discussing.
You call my argument a strawman, but you are who introduced it into conversation, claiming that non real things are gibberish. You haven't even got a clue about what you are arguing. You haven't the ability or are not willing to form a cogent line of reasoning. Instead, you simply make unprovable statements as though they mean anything. Only evidence belongs in a debate.
If you can prove that I have ever lied I will retract it immediately. It does not count if I am using your definitions from the previous post. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/21/2007 13:02:11 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 14:13:04 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis lied:
quote:
You implied that you never asserted such a thing, which is a lie because you said flat out nature includes all things that can possibly exist.
No, I didn't. You are lying. Your strawman argument has been exposed for the dishonest tactic it is, and you just don't have the sack to admit you are wrong. Even if you honestly misunderstood the first time, after I corrected you for the fourth time you should have been able to admit your error and move on.
It is your choice to continue to perpetuate your lie.
You have joined the ranks of the Bill Scott's of the world, congratulations.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 14:18:45 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis lied:
quote:
If you can prove that I have ever lied I will retract it immediately.
More lies. You have been demonstrated a liar several times in this thread, yet you refuse to recant.
Here, once again, is the specific lie you insist on repeating:
quote:
because you said flat out nature includes all things that can possibly exist.
Never have those words been spoken or written by me. Ever.
Your continued claim, after repeated corrections, that I have said such a thing lands you firmly in the "lying piece of shit" category.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 15:45:56 [Permalink]
|
Dude said:
"If a thing exists, then it exists in nature(using the more encompassing meaning of nature here).
The word "supernatural" is used to describe things that exist outside of nature, which is rather self evidently impossible."
Try to point out an actual lie, instead of lying about lying GK Dude |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/21/2007 15:49:56 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 16:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Dude has claimed that I made a strawman argument (no proof offered).
This is the only logic train Dude has offered
(a)Nature is the set of real things
Therefore
(b)Nothing real exists outside of nature
Can Dude proove his first assumption, assumption 'a'? No. Has he offered any evidence that he can prove the first assumption? No. Is it a strawman if it attacks his central argument? No.
Since no one could ever prove that things that exist can only be classes as physical or material or mental. The possiblity of a spirit is always a possibility. The subject of this thread was established as the possibility of a spitual, greater cause that exceeds the limits of natural laws, and the rationality of believing in that entity even though it cannot ever be proven to exists due to its primary characteristic, supernatural, or outside of nature and objective testability. Does such a discussion have merit? Yes, because the being will always remain a possibility. Does the descriptive word supernatural have merit to describe that possibility? Yes, because the assumed characteristics of the entity we were discussing as possibly existent can be described in part by the definition of supernatural. Case closed, supernatural in this context is not gibberish by any definition, even the colloquial loose usage, therefore, Dude was wrong to use the word gibberish. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/21/2007 16:11:03 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 17:37:05 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis lied:
quote:
Can Dude proove his first assumption, assumption 'a'? No. Has he offered any evidence that he can prove the first assumption? No. Is it a strawman if it attacks his central argument? No.
Now you are creating another strawman and refusing to acknowledge your first strawman. You have deliberately lied about what I have said so you can create your argument, so yes, you have created a strawman (a lie), in order to argue against it instead of my actual point.
I clearly and specifically quoted your lie, yet you refuse to even acknowledge it.
This is my last contribution to this thread until you recant your lies and offer an apology.
If you are really convinced that you have not created a strawman to argue against, you can ask for outside moderation (ask Dave_W to examine the thread and offer an analysis).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 18:05:55 [Permalink]
|
I have a better idea.
Would it be possible for you guys to agree to disagree? Or is it too late for that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 20:11:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Now you are creating another strawman and refusing to acknowledge your first strawman. You have deliberately lied about what I have said so you can create your argument, so yes, you have created a strawman (a lie), in order to argue against it instead of my actual ]point.
Ha Ha HA Ha hahahahhahha!!!!
You accuse me of creating a strawman, because I quoted your exact logic statement that you gave after I aksed for your logic statement! Wow, you don't even know what strawman means!
quote:
I clearly and specifically quoted your lie, yet you refuse to even acknowledge it.
I specifically gave you the quotes of when you said literally:
nothing can exist outside of nature for that is impossible.
your exact quote is right above. Your argument style of simply saying things with no evidence doesn't work past about the third grade.
quote:
This is my last contribution to this thread until you recant your lies and offer an apology.
I will apologize for any lies I have said. You must present them first Dude.
quote:
If you are really convinced that you have not created a strawman to argue against, you can ask for outside moderation (ask Dave_W to examine the thread and offer an analysis).
First, you wrote your argument as I quoted it. Second anyone is welcome to come into the forum and post any comments they have about it. I do not expect such posting because almost no one here cares about semantical arguments, which is the whole point of this one. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
