Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 4:27 am My emphasis to ChatGpt is to review the validity not the soundness which need more details.

Your argument's a crock. Sorry. It doesn't even make sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 4:27 am My emphasis to ChatGpt is to review the validity not the soundness which need more details.

Your argument's a crock. Sorry. It doesn't even make sense.

Your handwaving exposes your fears and ignorance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 4:27 am My emphasis to ChatGpt is to review the validity not the soundness which need more details.

Your argument's a crock. Sorry. It doesn't even make sense.

Your handwaving exposes your fears and ignorance.

Handwaving is a pretending to present, and failing to, an argument of substance. I don't think IC was doing that/trying to do that.
But let's call what you quoted of IC's handwaving.
So, what we have is:

IC: handwaving aimed at an argument
VA: handwaving aimed at a person (ad hom)
IWP: an observation and labelling of three non-arguments

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 4:21 am Given your declared position, it may be a wise move to believe in a God where you can pray to and seek help [& hopes] for any problem that humans cannot resolve for you.
This will at least shift the problem from your mind to avoid looping and making any mental problem worse.
Since the Abrahamic Gods are full of baggage, panentheism may be a good option for you.

Me changing my interpretation of the divine is not going to make the world different than it is. The world is what it is. And it's not going to change history either.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 4:27 am My emphasis to ChatGpt is to review the validity not the soundness which need more details.

Your argument's a crock. Sorry. It doesn't even make sense.

Your handwaving exposes your fears and ignorance.

Fears? Ignorance?

I'm sorry, VA. You're just not impressing me with that hogwash.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 1:17 pm Ignorance?

I'm sorry, VA. You're just not impressing me with that hogwash.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 1:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 1:17 pm Ignorance?

I'm sorry, VA. You're just not impressing me with that hogwash.

Well, let's go down the list.

First, the first five words assume the conclusion, in defiance of the meaning of "God". Secondly, the terms "impossible," "perfect" and "real" are all ambiguous (words that are capable of more than one definition), so the import they are intended to have cannot be known. Thirdly, the lack of a stable set of variables makes the syllogism formally unstable: technically, we say it's not "valid." And, of course, as VA admits, there's no reason for anybody to see the whole as "sound," to use the technical term.

So far from being some kind of a slam-dunk argument, as VA seems to imagine, it's like something put together by somebody who skipped most of Logic 101. But hey, if it impresses VA, then it impresses VA. It shouldn't impress anybody else.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 1:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 1:17 pm Ignorance?

I'm sorry, VA. You're just not impressing me with that hogwash.

Well, let's go down the list.

First, the first five words assume the conclusion, in defiance of the meaning of "God". Secondly, the terms "impossible," "perfect" and "real" are all ambiguous (words that are capable of more than one definition), so the import they are intended to have cannot be known. Thirdly, the lack of a stable set of variables makes the syllogism formally unstable: technically, we say it's not "valid." And, of course, as VA admits, there's no reason for anybody to see the whole as "sound," to use the technical term.

So far from being some kind of a slam-dunk argument, as VA seems to imagine, it's like something put together by somebody who skipped most of Logic 101. But hey, if it impresses VA, then it impresses VA. It shouldn't impress anybody else.

The eye roll refers to you denying ignorance. Nothing else.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 1:26 pm

Well, let's go down the list.

First, the first five words assume the conclusion, in defiance of the meaning of "God". Secondly, the terms "impossible," "perfect" and "real" are all ambiguous (words that are capable of more than one definition), so the import they are intended to have cannot be known. Thirdly, the lack of a stable set of variables makes the syllogism formally unstable: technically, we say it's not "valid." And, of course, as VA admits, there's no reason for anybody to see the whole as "sound," to use the technical term.

So far from being some kind of a slam-dunk argument, as VA seems to imagine, it's like something put together by somebody who skipped most of Logic 101. But hey, if it impresses VA, then it impresses VA. It shouldn't impress anybody else.

The eye roll refers to you denying ignorance. Nothing else.

Well, if your eyeroll refers to that, all it tells me is that you missed all of the above, and perhaps still do. And all that means is that you're not good at logic.

Okay.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:34 pm Well, if your eyeroll refers to that, all it tells me is that you missed all of the above, and perhaps still do. And all that means is that you're not good at logic.

Okay.

I'm no worse at logic than you are.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:34 pm Well, if your eyeroll refers to that, all it tells me is that you missed all of the above, and perhaps still do. And all that means is that you're not good at logic.

Okay.

I'm no worse at logic than you are.

Okay...see if anybody believes that, I guess.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:07 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:34 pm Well, if your eyeroll refers to that, all it tells me is that you missed all of the above, and perhaps still do. And all that means is that you're not good at logic.

Okay.

I'm no worse at logic than you are.

Okay...see if anybody believes that, I guess.

I'm not interested in what anyone else believes, I'm interested in what you believe. You suck at logic, IC.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:07 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:06 pm

I'm no worse at logic than you are.

Okay...see if anybody believes that, I guess.

You suck at logic, IC.

Yeah...your 'professional' opinion, in that regard, is worth to me about what you would think it's worth.

Listen, Gary: you're one messed up dude: you think that people who think you have potential to put your life together are your enemies. And you think that the people who find you pathetic are your friends. It's absolutely mystifying to me. But it sure does explain all your petty spite toward God; He's given you enough to make your life better, and you don't want to do it. For some reason, you prefer excuses. Maybe you're just afraid to try...I don't know.

Well, you don't have to, of course. But you should quit grousing; because you're not a victim, except of your own inertia. You could make your own life better and solve your own problems...and you insist you're not mentally ill, and that you're an appropriate partner for somebody...but you don't do anything about that? It's very hard to understand.

Just quit fooling yourself. Quit telling yourself that being sad and miserable is getting you some kind of admiration...or whatever you think it's getting you (the real answer, of course, is "nothing worth having.') Pick yourself up, dust off your life, and make something of what you've got. You have a lot, because you're a mainline Western male with an income, a computer, a tennis racquet and a brain. That's more than most of the world gets.

Only people who are genuinely sympathetic to you will tell you to do that. Those who have no regard for you will be only too happy to offer you at least the semblance of pity instead, because it allows them to see themselves as above you, not because they admire you. God's given you life, liberty, relative prosperity, an intellect, and a whole bunch of other assets you need to use to make something of your life. Be less bitter, and much more grateful. And do something.

When you figure that out, and when you act on it, your life is going to get better. Until you do, it simply will not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:28 pm He's given you enough to make your life better, and you don't want to do it. For some reason, you prefer excuses.

This whole world is a useless pit of evil. There's nothing "better" to aspire to other than to be better at performing evil.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:28 pm He's given you enough to make your life better, and you don't want to do it. For some reason, you prefer excuses.

This whole world is a useless pit of evil. There's nothing "better" to aspire to other than to be better at performing evil.

If that's all you want to see, then that is what you're going to make it. You'll surround yourself with bitterness, evil and ingratitude. You'll be miserable and defeated, and your potential will never be realized.

But you'll still have no justification for anger at God, then; you've made your life exactly what you intended it to be.

Here's what you need to realize: the people who are telling you what you want to hear -- that God is mean, that life is bad, that you can't do better -- are your hateful enemies. The people who are saying, "Gary, pick yourself up and use what you've got to make your life better," are your friends.

Why do you hate your friends and side with your enemies?