I give up.... :D
Printable View
I give up.... :D
“When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield.” - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Quote:
“When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield.” - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian)
LOL. This can hardly be applied in this case... :nod: but if it makes you feel better..you can choose to believe it.... ;)
if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....
Now I deserve inverted commas! I’ll settle for you being able to spell ‘condescending’ correctly. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Please don’t make any undue effort for my sake – of course, if it’s for your own sake, feel free. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Have you read Milton’s Samson Agonistes? You remind me of Harapha of Gath. (You might need google again). :D
So far, the best argument you made was about a misspelled word. :D For your records, I speak three languages fluently, and can communicate in two others. No reason to feel intimidated. ;)
Keine Sorge.... :lol:
We as humans are always asking "when?". We asked when you woke up and when you ate and what time various things happened. We like to celebrate time events. How long a couple has been dating. How long a couple has been married. Birthdays and significant events are other things we humans like to set a date too. It's not nessassarily that the religion was set at THAT time. It is a time to go by to celebrate blank years that religion has been in existance. Besides who knows?, how long was a day that long ago? We have been changing our calendars for centuries, trying to perfect it...how do we know that it was the same back that long ago?
Also, as the others were saying, it has a lot to do with written language. We all know that spoken words get jumbled and confused. The religion could have been around millions of years before.
But, I am very curious, just wondering, why is it you believe that religion is a human invention. Is it because as humans gained knowledge we invented gods to display it?
I have another question. We as humans have a thirst for power, do we not? People are constantly fighting for more power, that's why we have wars, we don't agree and people don't want to give in to other people views so we've tried to kill off their beliefs...right? So, if we are in a constant power struggle why would we even care to invent gods? We would want ourselves as a god or choose a person here on earth as one, as many groups have done.
I am just wondering to hear other people's views on these things.
VLADIMIR: Dumb! Since when?Quote:
Originally Posted by RemiAnn
POZZO: (suddenly furious.) Have you not done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? (Calmer.) They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Waiting for Godot Samuel Beckett
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Gotta love it.
:D Let's get back to the discussion, because ad hominem arguments are not my thing.
That is pretty much the definition of an argument. It is not my suggestion, but rather an overall concensus amongt people as to what an argumet is.Quote:
This is nonsense. You are trying to suggest that an argument must consist of premises, inferences and conclusions.
from Webster dictionary...
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion
WE don't have to be in a seminar to use logical ways of proving an argument. Every somewhat educated person is familiar with the ways of arguing an opinion, and what a productive discussion should have. If we are merely stating opinions, then there is no need to discuss, because you would state your opinon, and I would state mine, and that would be the end of it. If you are claiming this, then we can just stop here. However, if you are stating an argument, but then fail to support it, then there is an inconsistency. You cannot call something an argument and at the same time refuse to provide any support for it. It is misleading to the people who read this, because you claim something that we should accept as true fact, but then refuse to give the reasoning behind it. If there is no reasoning, then what you have is an opinion and not an argument.Quote:
If we were in a seminar comprising part of an undergraduate philosophy course, I would agree. But we are not.
I did...and here is what I found on the first glance....Quote:
No, I don’t believe the future is known. Read my posts attentively and you will see why.
:confused:Quote:
I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it.
If the future is known? Is that your premise? What if I say, if the future is not known, I can change it. That would be equally true then, because future is not known to us. I mean, it is really up to you to decide what your argument is and what you base it on. Here are some questions that you should ask yourself that would provide some clarification on what your argument really is.
Is the future known or not known? Is the knowledge of future same as predestination? Does influence exist or not? Does knowledge of future by God equate influence on our free will?
Are you admitting here that there is knowledge of the future? Whatever I call it? I call it knowledge of future by God. What do you want to call it. Decide and then tell me whether or not it exists or not.Quote:
The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future
No, I didn't imply that we cannot discuss concepts we don't believe in. I just stated that if you decide to argue something, you have to base that on some premises that you accept to be true/logical to that argument as valid. If you say that you think we don't have a free will because God is influencing us, then I would assume you have some premises that you are basing this belief on that you accept as valid and logical to that argument. You can't just state this but when someone asks you to provide proof with premises that make sense in this argument, you state that you don't believe in the premises. :confused: You don't have to believe in them per se, but you have to believe that a certain concept fits into this argument, and that is why you accept it as true to that argument.Quote:
This is more nonsense – you imply that we can only discuss concepts we believe in! Then you had better not discuss atheism or western democracy.
You don't have an argument. That is my statement. What I offered above was my assumption of your argument, because I had to do so to be able to lead a somewhat logical discussion. So I proceeded to state an argument on your behalf, because you have failed to do so, but as you can imagine, that task is pretty hard when the person keeps contradicting himself.Quote:
Above you said “There is no argument to answer”, now you outline what that argument is. Which is it? Am I offering an argument or not? It’s you who appear to be contradicting yourself.
Please enlighten me, and tell me what your argument is and what it is based on. Is there a premise in the argument that I have provided that you don't agree with? Does is just not fit what you want your conclusion to be? I don't know. You tell me.Quote:
Besides, that isn’t my argument. It’s a bastardisation of what you want to be seen as my argument.
When you make your assumptions, they should be logical and acceptable to the argument that you are making. It is irrelevant what you believe in reality, but when you make an argument that is based on faulty assumptions, then your conclusion will not be correct. It's very simple. However, when you confuse reality with hypothetical premises and conclusions, that's when the problem arises. I don't care what you believe in reality, it is totally irrelevant, what I care about is whether or not you have a valid argument, and whether or not your premises make sense in the argument. If you assumed that future is known, you would assume that God influences us, it would be equally incorrect as saying that you do believe the future is known, and because of it, you believe that God influences us. Hypothetical or not, it is simply not a valid argument.Quote:
Most of what I said was with the assumption IF I believed X, then I would find Y problematic. I didn’t realise that you don’t believe in adopting a hypothetical stance. The odd thing is though, this is an approach you yourself have used:
That is why I used argument in quotation marks, which seemed to offend you in the end. :) You didn't make an argument, you gave an opinion. When I use argument referring to what you are stating, I should use either opinion, or "argument". I will try to do so in the future to avoid confusion.Quote:
First of all, I offered no premise, inference and conclusion, so by your own definitions you cannot call what I said an argument.
Then you are agreeing that predestination and knowledge of future are one and the same thing?Quote:
‘Money’ and ‘Cash’ are not identical. However, in this case, they are sufficiently similar as to amount to the same thing.
Lol. Well, then, your assumption is incorrect. Whether or not your assumption is correct or not has nothing to do with what you in reality believe. The assumption has to make sense to the argument you are making, not necessarily be something you accept and believe in outside of the argument.Quote:
– I don’t believe it has already happened. I was again making the assumption if X, then Y.
I haven't read that article nor have I googled anything since we started this conversation except the definiton of an argument that I took from the online webster dictionary. What I am stating here are my beliefs, not based on a quick read of an article, but arisen from long term research and convictions that I have come to hold as true.Quote:
think I’ve found where the problem lies. I assume you’ve had a google and found this:
How do you draw a line between knowledge and influence? You are always missing that one link to connect and make a valid argument.Quote:
What He ‘knows’ cannot be altered. An omniscient God would know absolutely; we can’t.
Man, all I gotta say is you guys are ruthless!
21733 - This is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Easily arrived at by multiplying the number of psalms by the number of tribes of Israel by the first number that you happen to find in the Apocalypse of St John the Divine, take away 4 (for the Archangels who are too important to dance) and 7 (for the angels who are carefully holding the vials of plagues.)
.
Whifflingpin...are you okay?......
hullo sdr4jc, welcome.(sorry, I have been away)
Of course Whiffling is okay, he's more than okay, he's perfect and wonderful, and he dances with the angels and he is one.
I’ve said all I want to, thank you. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Der Klügere gibt nach. You had your chance! :lol:
Lieber breit grinsen als schmal denken. :brow:
H.L. Mencken wrote: "The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore;''
You have provided me with the same service. :D