For TheBorg,
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 07:17 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 03:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Since when did you forget how to use paragraphs?

Yeah, yeah, I know, toooo busy ...

Rolleyes


Well, hello! We are talking about gods here ... "arbitrary and self-serving" by definition.







Me! Obviously.


Is it?

Question to you: What is software made of? It exists, right? If not, tell me how the fuck Bill Gates got so rich!

Tell me what an IT system's self-monitoring applications are made of and I'll tell you what consciousness exists as.

Wink


Yabut! Where did that come from?

Angel

Are we not forced into conceding an infinite characteristic of existence?

Should we concede that all arguments for existence come down to acceptance of an infinite aspect to existence. Can we even define existence in a useful manner?

Ok, fuck you DLJ! My mind is a pretzel now, quite a miracle you manufactured there. Big Grin

There can be no arguments for existence as such. Existence is an irreducible primary, not the conclusion of an inference from prior premises. What prior premises? Premises that refer to what? We can only define existence ostensively, by pointing to it. The definition of a concept names the things the concept subsumes in terms of their essential characteristics. In the case of the concept existence the definition must name what the concept subsumes in terms of their essential characteristic, in the case their existence. The non-existent is excluded, everything else is included.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
04-09-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The act of praying and the emotional response it can give a person is real, but whether or not there‚Äôs a consciousness on the other end of the line to actually listen remains unknown to all of us.

Here's where we disagree. It's embarrassingly simple to prove that there isn't or at least that the claims that there is are false.

Since this is embarrassingly simple, can you please go ahead and prove to me that there is no consciousness on the other end of the line listening to a person's prayer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 03:07 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 02:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Here's where we disagree. It's embarrassingly simple to prove that there isn't or at least that the claims that there is are false.

Since this is embarrassingly simple, can you please go ahead and prove to me that there is no consciousness on the other end of the line listening to a person's prayer.

I'm... with Aliza on this, actually. I can't imagine it's any easier than figuring out whether, say, the NSA is watching through your webcam or the FBI has planted tiny cameras in your home. Quite a bit harder, actually.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 12:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 08:07 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Reality is 1 of 2 things; it can't be both?

*Either reality is there for all our consciousnesses to perceive, regardless of what a consciousness wishes, or even how well the consciousness perceives it.
*Or it is dreamed up (was created) by a consciousness.

If you believe this reality is completely impervious to your wishes, does not respond to your prayers, and will continue to exist beyond the cessation of your senses, you can't believe that it was created by a consciousness?

Did I get it, T-Scots?

Have we mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation yet which Chas does not accept because he won't admit wavefunction collapse:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse.

Wave functions are mathematical models, not actual things. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 03:44 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 02:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Here's where we disagree. It's embarrassingly simple to prove that there isn't or at least that the claims that there is are false.

Since this is embarrassingly simple, can you please go ahead and prove to me that there is no consciousness on the other end of the line listening to a person's prayer.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that there is. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 03:46 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 03:07 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(04-09-2016 02:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Since this is embarrassingly simple, can you please go ahead and prove to me that there is no consciousness on the other end of the line listening to a person's prayer.

I'm... with Aliza on this, actually. I can't imagine it's any easier than figuring out whether, say, the NSA is watching through your webcam or the FBI has planted tiny cameras in your home. Quite a bit harder, actually.

Proof is not required. Show me some evidence that there is one. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 04:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 03:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 12:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Have we mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation yet which Chas does not accept because he won't admit wavefunction collapse:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse.

Wave functions are mathematical models, not actual things. Facepalm

And virtual photons aren't?


The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
04-09-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 02:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Since this is embarrassingly simple, can you please go ahead and prove to me that there is no consciousness on the other end of the line listening to a person's prayer.


Word to the wise.

You have reversed the burden of proof. Please refrain from doing this on this particular website.

You'll get shot down in flames every time.




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
04-09-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-09-2016 03:07 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'm... with Aliza on this, actually. I can't imagine it's any easier than figuring out whether, say, the NSA is watching through your webcam or the FBI has planted tiny cameras in your home. Quite a bit harder, actually.

Proof is not required. Show me some evidence that there is one. Consider

I have no evidence and I've never claimed to have evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(04-09-2016 02:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Here's where we disagree. It's embarrassingly simple to prove that there isn't or at least that the claims that there is are false.

Since this is embarrassingly simple, can you please go ahead and prove to me that there is no consciousness on the other end of the line listening to a person's prayer.

You are asking someone to prove a negative? Gasp

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: