You just introduced three qualitative distinctions there : shit, a zoo and a monkey. Is a shit zoo throwing a monkey the same as a zoo monkey throwing shit? You just introduced two more qualitative distinctions : yourself and myself. And you are still sending the same ships out in the same harbor to get sunk at the same point. If I am not aware of it, the same distinction between God and me still persists. Is me being aware that God is co-opting my identity the same thing as me not being aware that God is co-opting my identity? I've already laid it out. There is an inextricable connection between "things" and "qualities/values". If you want to point to a twelve pack of donuts and say "look at that cancer cure" you can, but until you start connecting your words to values in a commonly accepted manner, people will just think you are a prov performance artist or something, or maybe just a stock standard insane person.
Absolutely anything. They are certainly marvels to behold, but its not their powers of culinary or thoughtful discrimination that are astounding. The first things you said were not the problem. It was the last thing you said that brought everything to a screeching halt.
I could put the statements directly into your brain, but were sticking with primitive convention today. Those textual items are called words. They represent things, like feces, animals and places with cages. More words that represent things, like undeclared deity worshiper and an actual deity. It means that God has assumed your identity, which means I am conversing with myself. It doesn’t have to conform to any sense of logic, it just has to be my will. The luxury of being me is that I don’t have to conform to any sense of logic, because logic is whatever I will it to be. You on the other hand, as a lowly biological unit, are still bound by the natural law that governs your universe, so logic is required in your arguments. In my previous post I requested that you lay out your personal epistemological prescription for knowing me. Since I've already determined that it’s impossible for you to know me, the actual God, we should instead focus on your personal prescription for knowing the God you originally imagined to be real. If a convincing argument can be made for the exitance of that God, maybe I’ll agree to abdicate.
Then why have you spent the last 7 pages of responses to me in disagreement to it? Ah, you think you spotted a means to exit via a back door and thus hopefully the actual issue in hand would be forgotten? Or are you going to finally address the issue? Before we move on.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or 10 Feel free to pick my choice for yourself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS Who is this false god in this thread? Is it someone wanting a Spartacus moment? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As your omnimax god, I choose the appropriate time and place to answer such questions. I had you ask that question just so I could give you that answer.
Yes. Discussion is like that. It can continue. Until someone introduces something that destroys the very premise of discussion. Then it stops. The issue at hand is that you have just introduced a bat-shit crazy notion and are still pretending it is part of a repertoire of seamless logic.
I always likened God to to humanity as a scientist peering into a microscope at multiplying bacteria, or was that aliens?
This "discussion" stopped the moment you were dishonest enough to obfuscate and evade the fact that your dismissal of Capracus' claim was fallacious. 7 pages of zero subsequent discussion. We can get on to what you think is a "bat-shit crazy notion" once we have resolved the original point. But given your history I can't see that happening. Hey ho.
Until you make a response to ... Trying to discern the validity of a claim of a certain knowledge that is strictly prohibited from touching on the before mentioned certain knowledge is the stuff that extended holidays in the nut house are made of. To say the least, someone who iscomposed of less mendacious qualities wouldn't frame serious discussion of the topic within such silly house rules. .... you can't be taken seriously in this discussion.
Tell it to baldee. He is the one trying to draw a magical opposing divide between "knowledge" and "a claim of knowledge."
There appears to be no discussion with you, regardless. You've made that patently obvious. Needless to say, if one can't tell the difference between "knowing X" and knowing about merely an aspect of X so as to be able to judge a claim about X, and one wishes to focus on that rather than the actual issue at hand, then one is merely obfuscating. And I don't need to "know you" to know that you're obfuscating. But hey, if you want to use this as an excuse to avoid acknowledging the fallacy of your initial dismissal, feel free.
Then it would be apparent how empty his argument is. By clothing his specious argument in ten dollar words, he can claim his position is intelligent. It's a favorite approach of politicians, lawyers and con artists the world around. And if anyone does parse their word salad and takes them to task on what they said, they can start disputing the meanings of the words they used and completely derail the discussion.
Sure. Its just when you prop up house rules that examining knowledge is a prohibited field when examining a claim of knowledge that things start to look funny. Once again, this is not coming from me. Its coming from Baldee.
Once again, its not the difference, its the prohibitions you place on them that is causing all the trouble. You insist that to discuss a claim of knowledge on X, you are not allowed to discuss the knowledge of X. Try that on any subject and you will be granted with the champion bat shit crazy trophy every time as the discussion drops dead in its tracks.
