For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You are steering the dialogue so skilfully and intentionally towards me.
Read what you just wrote and see how it applies to you.
How do your criticisms of each person who disagrees with your OP reflect on me?
Your bad faith engagement reflects on your.
No way. Did hell freeze over?
It must have.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:08 amNo way. Did hell freeze over?
OK. So are you an atheist, a theist, an agnostic; or are you skeptical toward all those things?Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:43 pmIt sounds like this is all about me.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:32 pmYou are the one repeatedly missing the points: Your thread makes no sense to anyone. You criticize everyone who has disagreed with you. You've made it clear that you are not as intelligent as you want to believe you are. You are the only one getting pissed off.
Still barking up the wrong tree. Woof! Woof!
I can only explain it to you so many times before I am forced to conclude that I can’t understand it for you.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:15 amIt must have.
Nah, I didn't hide it in the thread.
There are many things I agree with you've said elsewhere. Or perhaps better put, since your positions are shifting all over the place depending on context, I've thought they were interesting probes.
Value comes in many formsBut not necessarily the same kind of "value" for everyone.Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:49 pmIwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:15 amIt must have.
Nah, I didn't hide it in the thread.
There are many things I agree with you've said elsewhere. Or perhaps better put, since your positions are shifting all over the place depending on context, I've thought they were interesting probes.
Sure. My point was that there can be some kind of value even from things that seem lacking in it. The kind of value depends on the individual, of course. It just seems worthwhile to point out that there are many forms of value... some are quite subtle and unexpected... such as having a completely different insight than what a discussion might be focused on. Or... having things turn out great after, and because of, some kind of upheaval.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 6:21 pmBut not necessarily the same kind of "value" for everyone.
Fair enough. I stand scolded.Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 4:33 am Why are you responding to my post, by the way? You told me (as well as others) to leave you alone. Wouldn't it be appropriate if you refrain from commenting on my posts too? Or do you think this is to be a one-way standard, where you get to scream and act erratic whenever it suits you... and I (and others) are supposed to adapt to whatever mood you're in at any given moment?
I am a god-loving atheist. But if you want to cut the circle... I started at atheism. And now I am at the god-loving part.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 2:44 pm OK. So are you an atheist, a theist, an agnostic; or are you skeptical toward all those things?
A little knowledge of science make a man an atheist, but an in depth study of science makes him a believer in God. -- Francis Bacon
Well no. That's your current understanding of the current understanding. Ex nihilo is one hypothesis, but there are many others.
Okie-dokie.
You've gone back to thinking like this:
It's basically god of the gaps - you don't understand it, therefore it is magic. 'Supernatural' depends on whether you interpret the above definition as meaning beyond current understanding, in which case most of what we understand now was once supernatural, or that it means unconstrained by any laws that we could even in principle discover. Maybe it is, but we will probably never run out of natural hypotheses.
Oh Good!Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:12 am Well no. That's your current understanding of the current understanding. Ex nihilo is one hypothesis, but there are many others.
Congratulations on committing the EXACT SAME fallacy then.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:12 am It's basically god of the gaps - you don't understand it, therefore it is magic.
Don't tell me what it depends on. Which of the two interpretations are you using?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:12 am 'Supernatural' depends on whether you interpret the above definition as meaning beyond current understanding
Why are you speaking in negatives? Tell me what it means. Don't tell me what it doesn't mean.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:12 am in which case most of what we understand now was once supernatural, or that it means unconstrained by any laws that we could even in principle discover.