Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Fanman]

I did address it. The key word was banal.

That does not amount to a refutation or an argument.

I did explain what was wrong with your argument. You didn't address it, you just told me that Copilot thinks you can read a dictonary well. Your argument, such as it is, has been addressed to the extent that it deserves, and your claim that it "has yet to be addressed on the forum" is incorrect.

Could you please repost where you did, as I cannot remember you doing so. If I have not given what you stated the proper attention, I will do so.

[Fanman]

I don't see any external evidence to support your claims about AI, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective.

I didn't claim objectivity.

Suddenly that matters? Why didn't it matter for me?

Because you insulted me and called me autistic. Those are subjective claims, so I don't have to acknowledge them. That's a different category from claiming that AI is a useful resource for philosophy. I don't have to accept your insults, and you don't have to accept my claim that AI is a good resource for philosophy.

[FlashDangerpants]

That does not amount to a refutation or an argument.

I did explain what was wrong with your argument. You didn't address it, you just told me that Copilot thinks you can read a dictonary well. Your argument, such as it is, has been addressed to the extent that it deserves, and your claim that it "has yet to be addressed on the forum" is incorrect.

Could you please repost where you did, as I cannot remember you doing so. If I have not given what you stated the proper attention, I will do so.

Do you hit the reply button right away or do you read the post first? This wasn't long ago.

Yes, Immauel Can is annoying, and yes he is also talentless because he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he has made any mistake of reasoning, but at the end of the day the point that got you into the mess is at best banal.

Randomness versus clockwork causation being mere human interpretations of a world that progresses along a timeline whether we like it or nor certainly doesn't make them equivalent viewpoints, and without that it cannot make the question irrelevant. Hypothesising some mystical alternative way of seeing the world isn't an argument that the current way is unwise or mistaken.

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't claim objectivity.

Suddenly that matters? Why didn't it matter for me?

Because you insulted me and called me autistic. Those are subjective claims, so I don't have to acknowledge them. That's a different category from claiming that AI is a useful resource for philosophy. I don't have to accept your insults, and you don't have to accept my claim that AI is a good resource for philosophy.

It is definitely your subjective claim that AI is helpful to you, and it is my subjective claim that you are observably wildly over-reliant upon it and it is doing you harm. That which is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

It is my simple observation that the people who have shown an inability to parse the things other people write, and who share your tendency to replace human judgement with computed alternatives have so far shown a marked tendency to be autistic. It's not really an insult, just a population trend.

The inescapable fact is that you asked me why/if I expected you to take my word for something as trivial as the correct way to interpret a word from a dictionary over that of a chat bot that is designed to give you results that you want to read. I told you the truth, that is I didn't expect you to do that, but also that this is a problem. Being in such a conversation at all is indicative of a problem. You not being able to see that most humans would see it that way is an issue also. To be clear, I am not saying that there is enough in this conversation for a diagnosis. But I am not casually throwing an insult at you.

[Fanman]

I did explain what was wrong with your argument. You didn't address it, you just told me that Copilot thinks you can read a dictonary well. Your argument, such as it is, has been addressed to the extent that it deserves, and your claim that it "has yet to be addressed on the forum" is incorrect.

Could you please repost where you did, as I cannot remember you doing so. If I have not given what you stated the proper attention, I will do so.

Do you hit the reply button right away or do you read the post first? This wasn't long ago.

Yes, Immauel Can is annoying, and yes he is also talentless because he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he has made any mistake of reasoning, but at the end of the day the point that got you into the mess is at best banal.

Randomness versus clockwork causation being mere human interpretations of a world that progresses along a timeline whether we like it or nor certainly doesn't make them equivalent viewpoints, and without that it cannot make the question irrelevant. Hypothesising some mystical alternative way of seeing the world isn't an argument that the current way is unwise or mistaken.

These two paragraphs constitute your opinions, discussion, and labels. There's nothing to do with my argument here. How can you address my argument without a point-by-point analysis? You haven't mentioned a single point in my argument. Where are your logical counterarguments, coherent objections, and valid refutations?

I do not accept what you provided as having addressed my argument.

[Fanman]

Suddenly that matters? Why didn't it matter for me?

Because you insulted me and called me autistic. Those are subjective claims, so I don't have to acknowledge them. That's a different category from claiming that AI is a useful resource for philosophy. I don't have to accept your insults, and you don't have to accept my claim that AI is a good resource for philosophy.

It is definitely your subjective claim that AI is helpful to you, and it is my subjective claim that you are observably wildly over-reliant upon it and it is doing you harm. That which is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

It is my simple observation that the people who have shown an inability to parse the things other people write, and who share your tendency to replace human judgement with computed alternatives have so far shown a marked tendency to be autistic. It's not really an insult, just a population trend.

The inescapable fact is that you asked me why/if I expected you to take my word for something as trivial as the correct way to interpret a word from a dictionary over that of a chat bot that is designed to give you results that you want to read. I told you the truth, that is I didn't expect you to do that, but also that this is a problem. Being in such a conversation at all is indicative of a problem. You not being able to see that most humans would see it that way is an issue also. To be clear, I am not saying that there is enough in this conversation for a diagnosis. But I am not casually throwing an insult at you.

I acknowledge and respect your opinion; however, I do not agree with you or your framing of the situation. Please do not continue to address me in a way that can be interpreted as pejorative.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If we break things down to their most fundamental “action,” “passive state,” or condition, existence (or the universe) is progressing. I don’t attribute a direction to that progression, even though “forward” is the intuitive metaphor.

I am curious if you would agree that you are describing a process of constant movement, right? Isn’t the more accurate word, perhaps a substitute for ‘progress’, the word mutating and its cognates?

[Middle English progresse, from Latin prōgressus, from past participle of prōgredī, to advance : prō-, forward; see pro-1 + gradī, to go, walk; see ghredh- in Indo-European roots.]

[Latin mūtāre, mūtāt-, to change; see mei- in Indo-European roots.]

[FlashDangerpants]

Could you please repost where you did, as I cannot remember you doing so. If I have not given what you stated the proper attention, I will do so.

Do you hit the reply button right away or do you read the post first? This wasn't long ago.

Yes, Immauel Can is annoying, and yes he is also talentless because he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he has made any mistake of reasoning, but at the end of the day the point that got you into the mess is at best banal.

Randomness versus clockwork causation being mere human interpretations of a world that progresses along a timeline whether we like it or nor certainly doesn't make them equivalent viewpoints, and without that it cannot make the question irrelevant. Hypothesising some mystical alternative way of seeing the world isn't an argument that the current way is unwise or mistaken.

These two paragraphs constitute your opinions, discussion, and labels. There's nothing to do with my argument here. How can you address my argument without a point-by-point analysis? You haven't mentioned a single point in my argument. Where are your logical counterarguments, coherent objections, and valid refutations?

I do not accept what you provided as having addressed my argument.

Oh really. Well you will be sad to know that anyone can ask a chatbot to be their friend. I asked CGPT if my objection is valid. I didn't tell it which party to the converation was my good self. It's reply began.... Yes—but only partially. The objection identifies a real weakness in the argument, but it does not straightforwardly refute the whole position."

That's as much slop as I have any interest in. It goes without saying that ChatGPT isn't a terribly good reader because it isn't an understanding engine, just a text generating one. But you like that shit so that's your problem, it clearly says you are wrong,although once you tell Copilot which party is you and which is your enemy, obviously that will change things completely.

GPT thought that your argument was mine by the way. Not sure why. I am sort of offended to be honest.

[Fanman]

If we break things down to their most fundamental “action,” “passive state,” or condition, existence (or the universe) is progressing. I don’t attribute a direction to that progression, even though “forward” is the intuitive metaphor.

I am curious if you would agree that you are describing a process of constant movement, right? Isn’t the more accurate word, perhaps a substitute for ‘progress’, the word mutating and its cognates?

[Middle English progresse, from Latin prōgressus, from past participle of prōgredī, to advance : prō-, forward; see pro-1 + gradī, to go, walk; see ghredh- in Indo-European roots.]

[Latin mūtāre, mūtāt-, to change; see mei- in Indo-European roots.]

Alexis,

For you, the neutral reader, and anyone interested in replying: I am no longer responding to semantic points regarding my unaddressed argument. If you want to discuss my argument with me regarding logic, coherence, reason, and cogency, fine. However, I am done with semantic debates. If that displeases you, I apologise, but that is my new boundary.

[Alexis Jacobi]

For you, the neutral reader, and anyone interested in replying: I am no longer responding to semantic points regarding my unaddressed argument…

I am only interested in the debate if it will be made clear what is at stake in it. You will find (this is my assertion) that the topic at stake is too often lost in (what I see as) senseless bickering.

So, Boneman is trying to undermine not so much an argument put forth by IC, but rather an unstated set of other issues Boneman has with IC. (Over a decade of history here …)

My comment about choice of words really has no relationship to this topic, whatever it is. I simply thought that what you seemed to mean was better expressed by “mutable” and “mutability”. In any case, your meaning was clear to me.

[Will Bouwman]

That something "could" be the case goes no step toward suggesting that it IS.

For current purposes, it doesn't have to. Any argument that includes a premise that could or could not be the case is unsound. Is that not so, Mr Can?

[Immanuel Can]

That something "could" be the case goes no step toward suggesting that it IS.

For current purposes, it doesn't have to. Any argument that includes a premise that could or could not be the case is unsound. Is that not so, Mr Can?

Well, that takes care of the idea that the "might" of quantum theory presents any "challenge" to the very observable fact of causality, I would say.

[Will Bouwman]

Any argument that includes a premise that could or could not be the case is unsound. Is that not so, Mr Can?

Well, that takes care of the idea that the "might" of quantum theory presents any "challenge" to the very observable fact of causality, I would say.

Does it take care of the fact that the universe might have been caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation?

[Immanuel Can]

Any argument that includes a premise that could or could not be the case is unsound. Is that not so, Mr Can?

Well, that takes care of the idea that the "might" of quantum theory presents any "challenge" to the very observable fact of causality, I would say.

Does it take care of the fact that the universe might have been caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation?

Well, I suppose you'd begin by providing the evidence for this "quantum fluctuation" having taken place, and add the evidence for it being "uncaused," estimate the likelihood of that "maybe" evidence, however strong or weak it is, being decisive, and you'll be able the estimate the likelihood of that being the explanation.

[mickthinks]

lol