Philosophy Now Forum

Lol! I wuz gonna put at the very end of the dialogue earlier:

Pro75: *looks at watch* it's been ten minutes, Henry.

(you've already lost, but I still love u)

you've already lost, but I still love u

nope, and, I don't care about you one way or the other

Because you're a hardcore minarchist deist with freewill, Henry.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:42 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:29 pm An adult as compared to a child would normally know it was wrong before it was done to him.

And, the very opposite could also be argued.

How?

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:42 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:29 pm An adult as compared to a child would normally know it was wrong before it was done to him.

And, the very opposite could also be argued.

How?

The younger 'you' ALL were the more you just instinctively KNEW, and KNOW, Right from Wrong.

Whereas, as 'you' grew the more confused 'you' became about what is ACTUALLY Right from what is ACTUALLY Wrong.

As evidenced and PROVED True by 'you', human beings.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm "I suggest that it's not so much a situation of how badly God has done, but more of how badly humans have done."

It can't work like that, due to a certain line of reasoning I shall now demonstrate to you.

If we suppose that the universe was created by something we will call 'god', we have to suspect that this 'god' created the universe a certain way rather than some other way... and that he set what we call the 'laws of nature' to work a certain way.

WHY would you even begin to suppose or assume that this "god" thing would be gendered, and be male gendered at that?

Is it possible for a thing (or things) to create things without those created things necessarily having to work in a certain way?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm That is to say he designed the universe... what is in it and what this stuff does.

Have 'you', human beings, designed the actual life you live... what is in it and what this life is?

'you' do create the life you live, correct?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now skip a bunch of shit and fast-forward to man. Man, being part of this universe, is just as subject to these 'laws of nature' as anything else. However, one thing this 'god' couldn't have made a part of man's nature, is 'freewill'... for two reasons; first, man would have to be exempt from the 'laws of nature' in order to be causally independent of them.

But, if the 'laws of nature' contain 'free will', then NO exemption is needed.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Second, this 'god' would know in advance, anything that was to happen in this universe by virtue of him knowing what the 'laws of nature' are, as well as how they will work.

This does NOT work, for what you are 'trying to' argue for.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm So while to man - who cannot know like 'god' what the future will be like - it seems as if he is acting of his own 'freewill', independently of causality, actually he isn't, because 'god' already knows what will happen.

And, "god" can also KNOW that when 'you', human beings, fully understand, and use, 'free will' properly and correct, then what was designed and is KNOWN to happen, in the so-called 'future", WILL HAPPEN, or, more truthfully, IS ALREADY OCCURRING.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm This is both a consequence of 'god's' omnipotence and omniscience. On the other hand, if 'god' has neither of these attributes, he ain't really 'god'.

Also, if 'god' has these attributes, it means it was perfectly possible for 'god' to skip the whole test, snap his fingers, and put everyone in heaven from the start.

You REALLY do have a LOT MORE to learn and understand.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now you say 'but god didn't do this because he wanted people to choose to be by his side, or else he'd have created only automatons, and who wants to hang out with automatons.'

Ah, but 'freewill' is logically and physically impossible for the above reasons...

WHERE EXACTLY above, and WHAT EXACTLY, are the 'reasons' that 'free will' is logically and physically IMPOSSIBLE.

But FIRST what EXACTLY does 'freewill' actually mean or refer to, to you?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm so he gets automatons in any case.

What are/is 'automatons', to you, EXACTLY?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm See, freewill is impossible anyway... but it's especially impossible if such a 'god' exists.

REALLY? Is this an IRREFUTABLE Fact?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm That being the case, everything that transpires in this universe is his fault. The existence of the devil, evil, natural disasters, disease, famine, agonizing death, human conflict and violence in general.

The bum literally botched the whole project from the beginning.

So, 'you', the adult human being, take NO responsibility AT ALL for your OWN behaviors here, correct?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now I propose instead a spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god' to avoid all this embarrassing nonsense.

What is this so-called "spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god', EXACTLY?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:17 pm You agree that god is omniscient or 'all-knowing', yes?

Nope, not when it comes to free will.

As I say: mebbe that's why He built a universe with free wills: to experience surprise. The free will is, from His perspective, the only wildcard.

The theist might be flummoxed by you, but I'm a deist: you'll have to adapt.

God being omniscient or 'all-knowing' fits PERFECTLY with 'free will'.

But then I KNOW this because I KNOW what God IS, EXACTLY.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:02 am I suggest that it's not so much a situation of how badly God has done, but more of how badly humans have done.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm It can't work like that, due to a certain line of reasoning I shall now demonstrate to you.

If we suppose that the universe was created by something we will call 'god', we have to suspect that this 'god' created the universe a certain way rather than some other way... and that he set what we call the 'laws of nature' to work a certain way. That is to say he designed the universe... what is in it and what this stuff does.

A rudimentary setup to your argument, but I generally agree with that.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now skip a bunch of shit and fast-forward to man. Man, being part of this universe, is just as subject to these 'laws of nature' as anything else....

Yes, the "material" aspect of man (as in man's body and brain) is indeed subject to the "laws of nature" (the laws of physics). However, the laws of physics do not seem to be applicable to the mental aspect of man's makeup (as in man's mind and consciousness).

There's a reason why it's called the mind/body "PROBLEM."

In other words, I defy you (or anyone else) to apply Schrödinger's equation to the "thinker" of thoughts or the "dreamer" of dreams.

(And, no, nothing in neurophysiology research involving fMRI's, EEGs and other brain scanning equipment, even comes close to "directly" accessing the domain that I am referring to. So don't even bother mentioning it.)

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm However, one thing this 'god' couldn't have made a part of man's nature, is 'freewill' for two reasons; first, man would have to be exempt from the 'laws of nature' in order to be causally independent of them.

Again, you need to stop conflating mind (or, more specifically, the mind's self-aware "agent") with matter as if there were no difference between the two.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Second, this 'god' would know in advance, anything that was to happen in this universe by virtue of him knowing what the 'laws of nature' are, as well as how they will work. So while to man - who cannot know like 'god' what the future will be like - it seems as if he is acting of his own 'freewill', independently of causality, actually he isn't, because 'god' already knows what will happen. This is both a consequence of 'god's' omnipotence and omniscience.

And therein lies what I believe is a major problem. And the problem is that the promoters of the idea that God is "omniscient" are taking what it means to be "omniscient" to an impossible extreme.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm On the other hand, if 'god' has neither of these attributes, he ain't really 'god'.

You're not the first person on this forum that I've had a similar argument with.

Let me get this straight. Even though there may exist a singular living Entity who not only created the billions of galaxies of suns and planets of this universe,..

(out of the living fabric of his very own being, no less)

...but also created the very conditions that made it possible to awaken you into existence, you nevertheless feel that if he (she/it) is not able to know from his present position, the "precise" outcome of every event ever to unfold in the future of this universe,...

...then he is simply not worthy of the title of "God."

Is that about right?

In other words, even though you, me, the earth, and the entire universe would not even exist were it not for the creative efforts of this singular Being, he nonetheless would not meet the requirements for the title of "God" if he doesn't live up to some human contrived notion of what the word "omniscience" means.

Is that your position on the issue?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Also, if 'god' has these attributes, it means it was perfectly possible for 'god' to skip the whole test, snap his fingers, and put everyone in heaven from the start.

Did it ever occur to you that the idea of our earthly existence being a "test" is just a foolish misreading of our situation?

Have you ever considered the possibility that even God might require a physiological (mechanistic) process to awaken a new mind (a new eternal "soul") into existence? I'm talking about a process that involves the use of suns, planets, bodies, and brains to get the job done?

I suggest that just as humans are assuming way too much when it comes to the concept of "omniscience," likewise, they are over-estimating what the word "omnipotent" means, in that it is pure hogwash to believe that God can simply "snap his fingers" and..."poof"...a new soul is created.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now you say 'but god didn't do this because he wanted people to choose to be by his side, or else he'd have created only automatons, and who wants to hang out with automatons.'

I say no such thing. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Ah, but 'freewill' is logically and physically impossible for the above reasons... so he gets automatons in any case.

Yeah, but your "above reasons" are based on you mistakenly conflating the limitations implicit in the workings of physical matter with that of the infinite possibilities inherent in the workings of mind and consciousness.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm See, freewill is impossible anyway... but it's especially impossible if such a 'god' exists.

That being the case, everything that transpires in this universe is his fault. The existence of the devil,...

There is no devil. That's just mythological codswallop.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm ...evil,...

The evil perpetrated by humans is, for the most part, simply the result of low human consciousness and the actions resulting from it.

However, I will grant you that our purposely attenuated (low) level of consciousness which leads to the type of evil behavior witnessed in these knuckleheads...



...is indeed God's fault. But God has attenuated our consciousness for a very good reason (ask me why).

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm ...natural disasters, disease, famine, agonizing death, human conflict and violence in general.

I suggest that we (meaning our eternal souls) are not meant to stay trapped in these bodies (in this lower dimension of reality) forever.

As crazy as this may sound, I have often (indeed, incessantly) suggested that God is "pregnant" with us, and that we (our minds) are the literal "embryos" of the greater mind of God (i.e. the universe).

In which case, what you have mentioned above are simply a few of the various means of metaphorically "breaking God's water," so to speak, in order to deliver us ("birth" us) into our ultimate and eternal form in true reality.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm The bum literally botched the whole project from the beginning.

Do you absolutely hate your life?

If not, then perhaps the "bum" didn't do quite as bad as you suggest (never mind what may be awaiting us after death).

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now I propose instead a spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god' to avoid all this embarrassing nonsense.

Well, seeing how the Spinozan explanation for the creation of the universe is grounded in his concept of "natura naturans" (nature naturing) which, in essence, means "chance chancing," and doesn't provide the slightest clue as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about,...

...then I'm afraid you are defaulting to a level of nonsense (the "chance hypothesis") that is even more embarrassing (more ridiculous) than what you are mocking and rejecting.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:02 am I suggest that it's not so much a situation of how badly God has done, but more of how badly humans have done.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm It can't work like that, due to a certain line of reasoning I shall now demonstrate to you.

If we suppose that the universe was created by something we will call 'god', we have to suspect that this 'god' created the universe a certain way rather than some other way... and that he set what we call the 'laws of nature' to work a certain way. That is to say he designed the universe... what is in it and what this stuff does.

A rudimentary setup to your argument, but I generally agree with that.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now skip a bunch of shit and fast-forward to man. Man, being part of this universe, is just as subject to these 'laws of nature' as anything else....

Yes, the "material" aspect of man (as in man's body and brain) is indeed subject to the "laws of nature" (the laws of physics). However, the laws of physics do not seem to be applicable to the mental aspect of man's makeup (as in man's mind and consciousness).

There's a reason why it's called the mind/body "PROBLEM."

In other words, I defy you (or anyone else) to apply Schrödinger's equation to the "thinker" of thoughts or the "dreamer" of dreams.

(And, no, nothing in neurophysiology research involving fMRI's, EEGs and other brain scanning equipment, even comes close to "directly" accessing the domain that I am referring to. So don't even bother mentioning it.)

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm However, one thing this 'god' couldn't have made a part of man's nature, is 'freewill' for two reasons; first, man would have to be exempt from the 'laws of nature' in order to be causally independent of them.

Again, you need to stop conflating mind (or, more specifically, the mind's self-aware "agent") with matter as if there were no difference between the two.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Second, this 'god' would know in advance, anything that was to happen in this universe by virtue of him knowing what the 'laws of nature' are, as well as how they will work. So while to man - who cannot know like 'god' what the future will be like - it seems as if he is acting of his own 'freewill', independently of causality, actually he isn't, because 'god' already knows what will happen. This is both a consequence of 'god's' omnipotence and omniscience.

And therein lies what I believe is a major problem. And the problem is that the promoters of the idea that God is "omniscient" are taking what it means to be "omniscient" to an impossible extreme.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm On the other hand, if 'god' has neither of these attributes, he ain't really 'god'.

You're not the first person on this forum that I've had a similar argument with.

Let me get this straight. Even though there may exist a singular living Entity who not only created the billions of galaxies of suns and planets of this universe,..

(out of the living fabric of his very own being, no less)

...but also created the very conditions that made it possible to awaken you into existence, you nevertheless feel that if he (she/it) is not able to know from his present position, the "precise" outcome of every event ever to unfold in the future of this universe,...

...then he is simply not worthy of the title of "God."

Is that about right?

In other words, even though you, me, the earth, and the entire universe would not even exist were it not for the creative efforts of this singular Being, he nonetheless would not meet the requirements for the title of "God" if he doesn't live up to some human contrived notion of what the word "omniscience" means.

Is that your position on the issue?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Also, if 'god' has these attributes, it means it was perfectly possible for 'god' to skip the whole test, snap his fingers, and put everyone in heaven from the start.

Did it ever occur to you that the idea of our earthly existence being a "test" is just a foolish misreading of our situation?

Have you ever considered the possibility that even God might require a physiological (mechanistic) process to awaken a new mind (a new eternal "soul") into existence? I'm talking about a process that involves the use of suns, planets, bodies, and brains to get the job done?

I suggest that just as humans are assuming way too much when it comes to the concept of "omniscience," likewise, they are over-estimating what the word "omnipotent" means, in that it is pure hogwash to believe that God can simply "snap his fingers" and..."poof"...a new soul is created.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now you say 'but god didn't do this because he wanted people to choose to be by his side, or else he'd have created only automatons, and who wants to hang out with automatons.'

I say no such thing. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Ah, but 'freewill' is logically and physically impossible for the above reasons... so he gets automatons in any case.

Yeah, but your "above reasons" are based on you mistakenly conflating the limitations implicit in the workings of physical matter with that of the infinite possibilities inherent in the workings of mind and consciousness.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm See, freewill is impossible anyway... but it's especially impossible if such a 'god' exists.

That being the case, everything that transpires in this universe is his fault. The existence of the devil,...

There is no devil. That's just mythological codswallop.

Is it NOT possible that the word 'devil' just means or refers to some 'thing', which actually exists?

Or, is this just NOT a possibility in "seed's" 'world view' of 'things'?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm ...evil,...

The evil perpetrated by humans is, for the most part, simply the result of low human consciousness and the actions resulting from it.

However, I will grant you that our purposely attenuated (low) level of consciousness which leads to the type of evil behavior witnessed in these knuckleheads...



...is indeed God's fault. But God has attenuated our consciousness for a very good reason (ask me why).

WHY?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm ...natural disasters, disease, famine, agonizing death, human conflict and violence in general.

I suggest that we (meaning our eternal souls) are not meant to stay trapped in these bodies (in this lower dimension of reality) forever.

There is NO lower NOR higher dimension to 'Reality'. There is just, 'Reality', Itself.

How 'you', human beings, perceive 'Reality', and, what 'you' perceive 'Reality' to actually be, however, can hold lower or higher dimensions of correctness, or truth-values.

Also, and obviously, hither to, and in, the days when this was being written the 'eternal souls' (and what that means or refers to EXACTLY) are NOT meant to stay within those human bodies, as those human bodies did NOT last forever, CLEARLY.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm As crazy as this may sound, I have often (indeed, incessantly) suggested that God is "pregnant" with us, and that we (our minds) are the literal "embryos" of the greater mind of God (i.e. the universe).

Which is ANOTHER way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things.

And, if you think, feel, or KNOW 'you' could provide your VIEWS in a way that EVERY one could agree with and accept, and without there being ANY contradiction ANYWHERE, then great.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm In which case, what you have mentioned above are simply a few of the various means of metaphorically "breaking God's water," so to speak, in order to deliver us ("birth" us) into our ultimate and eternal form in true reality.

Although this is FAIRLY CLOSE to, or if NOT is, thee ACTUAL Truth of things would you like to discuss this further?

Or, would you prefer to just keeping HOLDING and EXPRESSING that view only?

By the way, what is 'true reality', and how does 'that reality' compare to 'false reality', for example, EXACTLY?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm The bum literally botched the whole project from the beginning.

Do you absolutely hate your life?

If not, then perhaps the "bum" didn't do quite as bad as you suggest (never mind what may be awaiting us after death).

'you' have mentioned and talked about this 'us' a fair bit here now, so what is this 'us' thing, EXACTLY, which supposedly is born, lives, dies, and also somehow has 'eternal souls'?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now I propose instead a spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god' to avoid all this embarrassing nonsense.

Well, seeing how the Spinozan explanation for the creation of the universe is grounded in his concept of "natura naturans" (nature naturing) which, in essence, means "chance chancing," and doesn't provide the slightest clue as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about,...

Are you able to provide the 'slightest clue' about how the Universe, Itself, came about?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, WHY would you CLAIM that the order of the Universe is an unfathomable order, especially considering that just fathoming and KNOWING what that order is EXACTLY is an extremely VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm ...then I'm afraid you are defaulting to a level of nonsense (the "chance hypothesis") that is even more embarrassing (more ridiculous) than what you are mocking and rejecting.
_______

WHY EXACTLY is the 'chance hypothesis', to you, even more embarrassing (and more ridiculous) than the 'hypothesis', which you BELIEVE is true, right, and correct?

"There's a reason why it's called the mind/body PROBLEM."

Not a problem at all... just a gross conceptual confusion produced by an extraordinary and usually metaphysical use of language. Some relevant material to investigate concerning this:

Spinoza's substance monism (the problem of two fundamentally different substances causally interacting)
Ryle's category mistake
Wittgenstein's beetle in a box
Dennet's intuition pumps (diabolical neurosurgeons)
Critiques of Nagel's 'what it's like to be a bat', and Jackson's 'mary's room' thought experiments.
Peter Hacker's critique of theories of mind

You can also run a little exercise yourself and try to recall how in your youth, before you discovered philosophy, your use and understanding of the words 'mind' and 'consciousness' were rather simplified but very meaningful... something you didn't start scratching your head about just yet. You knew what it meant when someone said 'be mindful about what you're doing', or 'mind your own business', or 'he's lost his mind'. Each of these were descriptions of behaviors, and the use of the word implied nothing metaphysical. You also knew what it meant when a doctor pointed at a patient and said 'he has regained consciousness', and when you questioned the nature of your own mind, you didn't wonder if it was some immaterial thing interacting with your body... but rather just the self awareness of your thinking.

This was before you met Plato and Descartes and Schrodinger (and his cat), who sabotaged your understanding by introducing strange and unusual ways of using such words.

Yeah just check out those resources I listed above if you can (especially W's beetle in a box). Everything is explained in those arguments, and I'd hope I wouldn't have to hash it all out again because I met another substance dualist at some forum. It can really be exhausting to do these arguments over and over again only to discover the other guy doesn't understand, or does, but chooses to fight tooth and nail against them because he finds them disagreeable.

And no, I'm not an idiot. I already admitted that my business here is to troll, not debate. Those days are over, Haus. I'd rather be fishing.

Oh and it's not for nuthin that I busted through the doors waving the banner of Karl Marx. This might come to make more sense as the days pass. There really is no debate to be had other than how to end capitalism the fastest. No really, I mean that. Philosophy is deader'na door nail.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:19 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:42 am

And, the very opposite could also be argued.

How?

The younger 'you' ALL were the more you just instinctively KNEW, and KNOW, Right from Wrong.

Whereas, as 'you' grew the more confused 'you' became about what is ACTUALLY Right from what is ACTUALLY Wrong.

As evidenced and PROVED True by 'you', human beings.

You're one funny guy!

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:21 am "There's a reason why it's called the mind/body PROBLEM."

Not a problem at all... just a gross conceptual confusion produced by an extraordinary and usually metaphysical use of language. Some relevant material to investigate concerning this:

Spinoza's substance monism (the problem of two fundamentally different substances causally interacting)
Ryle's category mistake
Wittgenstein's beetle in a box
Dennet's intuition pumps (diabolical neurosurgeons)
Critiques of Nagel's 'what it's like to be a bat', and Jackson's 'mary's room' thought experiments.
Peter Hacker's critique of theories of mind

You can also run a little exercise yourself and try to recall how in your youth, before you discovered philosophy, your use and understanding of the words 'mind' and 'consciousness' were rather simplified but very meaningful... something you didn't start scratching your head about just yet. You knew what it meant when someone said 'be mindful about what you're doing', or 'mind your own business', or 'he's lost his mind'. Each of these were descriptions of behaviors, and the use of the word implied nothing metaphysical. You also knew what it meant when a doctor pointed at a patient and said 'he has regained consciousness', and when you questioned the nature of your own mind, you didn't wonder if it was some immaterial thing interacting with your body... but rather just the self awareness of your thinking.

This was before you met Plato and Descartes and Schrodinger (and his cat), who sabotaged your understanding by introducing strange and unusual ways of using such words.

Yeah just check out those resources I listed above if you can (especially W's beetle in a box). Everything is explained in those arguments, and I'd hope I wouldn't have to hash it all out again because I met another substance dualist at some forum. It can really be exhausting to do these arguments over and over again only to discover the other guy doesn't understand, or does, but chooses to fight tooth and nail against them because he finds them disagreeable.

And no, I'm not an idiot. I already admitted that my business here is to troll, not debate. Those days are over, Haus. I'd rather be fishing.

What are you 'trolling' for, EXACTLY?

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:19 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:01 pm

How?

The younger 'you' ALL were the more you just instinctively KNEW, and KNOW, Right from Wrong.

Whereas, as 'you' grew the more confused 'you' became about what is ACTUALLY Right from what is ACTUALLY Wrong.

As evidenced and PROVED True by 'you', human beings.

You're one funny guy!

Are you trying to suggest something here?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

If, for example, you would like to suggest that 'you', as an adult human being, KNOWS what is Right from what is Wrong, then please proceed in SHOWING this.

However, you may be trying to suggest something else here above.

"What are you 'trolling' for, EXACTLY?"

Fantastic people.

What CAN YOU do that's FANTASTIC... other than your USE of THE caps-lock?