Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Have you tried looking it up yourself?

Ok so it's as I thought?

As long as it's just name-calling then I am happy to ignore it.

"That seems like unsubstantiated pseudoscience" is not name-calling.

(03-09-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Name-calling is a truly fascinating thing. In my opinion it is literally the remnants of irrational spell-casting as that still exists in modern reality, as it's the attempt to take someone's or some thing's power away just by throwing words at them/it.

And on what do you base that opinion?

(03-09-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Sometimes, it really "does work", in the sense that by insulting someone remotely over the internet it can be possible to unsettle them and affect their behaviour. Insofar as one is successful at actually affecting them, "magic" is still alive and well in the modern world.

Anyway, I digress, but do carry on casting spells if you think it will work :-)

Incidentally, I could say that dismissing others' comments as "irrational spell-casting" certainly seems, shall we say, like "[an] attempt to take someone's or some thing's power away just by throwing words at them/it."

I could say that, but I suppose it might come off as dangerously smarmy.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 12:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:18 PM)phil.a Wrote:  cjlr:

What do you understand by my assertion that humans (and in fact, all entities in the cosmos) are separate in a relative sense but aren't separate in an absolute sense?

Can you reflect back your understanding of that idea, when I can see how you are looking at it then it might be that I can help you better understand what I mean.

I do not think you have bothered to make clear what you mean by "separate". Nor do I find any of the likely interpretations in any way meaningful.

If by "absolute" separation you mean isolated systems, then no, no objects within our universe are separate in an absolute sense. But so what?

What conclusions do you draw from this trivial observation? And why?

OK so you do understand. Humans might be relatively separate but aren't absolutely separate.

As to my conclusions - what don't you understand about the conclusions given in my previous posts?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 01:12 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 01:08 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I do not think you have bothered to make clear what you mean by "separate". Nor do I find any of the likely interpretations in any way meaningful.

If by "absolute" separation you mean isolated systems, then no, no objects within our universe are separate in an absolute sense. But so what?

What conclusions do you draw from this trivial observation? And why?

OK so you do understand. Humans might be relatively separate but aren't absolutely separate.

As to my conclusions - what don't you understand about the conclusions given in my previous posts?

I find them extremely vague and inadequately specified.

More to the point, I completely fail to see how you reach such conclusions from such strikingly trivial observations as "existence exists" and "things interact".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 01:08 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I do not think you have bothered to make clear what you mean by "separate". Nor do I find any of the likely interpretations in any way meaningful.

If by "absolute" separation you mean isolated systems, then no, no objects within our universe are separate in an absolute sense. But so what?

What conclusions do you draw from this trivial observation? And why?

OK so you do understand. Humans might be relatively separate but aren't absolutely separate.

As to my conclusions - what don't you understand about the conclusions given in my previous posts?

Phil

Humans are quite separate, yet we interact. No one can share another's thoughts and feelings.
Why? Because we are separate entities.

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
03-09-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Have you tried looking it up yourself?

Ok so it's as I thought?

As long as it's just name-calling then I am happy to ignore it.

Name-calling is a truly fascinating thing. In my opinion it is literally the remnants of irrational spell-casting as that still exists in modern reality, as it's the attempt to take someone's or some thing's power away just by throwing words at them/it.

Sometimes, it really "does work", in the sense that by insulting someone remotely over the internet it can be possible to unsettle them and affect their behaviour. Insofar as one is successful at actually affecting them, "magic" is still alive and well in the modern world.

Anyway, I digress, but do carry on casting spells if you think it will work :-)

Phil

Name calling? No, it is an evaluation of your ideas as expressed here. They definitely sound like woo. 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
03-09-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 01:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find them extremely vague and inadequately specified.

Then specify them more completely. You said:

* "I'm pretty sure you and I are, in fact, separate people."

* "no objects within our universe are separate in an absolute sense"

What do you mean by these claims?

When you know where the "edges" are between absolute and relative, perhaps you will let me know!

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 01:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Ok so it's as I thought?

As long as it's just name-calling then I am happy to ignore it.

Name-calling is a truly fascinating thing. In my opinion it is literally the remnants of irrational spell-casting as that still exists in modern reality, as it's the attempt to take someone's or some thing's power away just by throwing words at them/it.

Sometimes, it really "does work", in the sense that by insulting someone remotely over the internet it can be possible to unsettle them and affect their behaviour. Insofar as one is successful at actually affecting them, "magic" is still alive and well in the modern world.

Anyway, I digress, but do carry on casting spells if you think it will work :-)

Phil

Name calling? No, it is an evaluation of your ideas as expressed here. They definitely sound like woo. Drinking Beverage

Fine by me! My ideas sound like "woo" to you, your "woo" sounds like irrational spell casting to me?

It's kind of fun how there's no longer any rational, facts-based element to this discussion :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2014 02:20 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 01:47 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 01:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find them extremely vague and inadequately specified.

Then specify them more completely.

It's not my job to specify your claims.

Nor do I know where you might have gotten the idea that it is.

(03-09-2014 01:47 PM)phil.a Wrote:  You said:

* "I'm pretty sure you and I are, in fact, separate people."

* "no objects within our universe are separate in an absolute sense"

What do you mean by these claims?

As to the latter, that was my accepting a small part of your claim.

As to the former, I seriously question the point of any elaboration.

Are you going somewhere with this? If so, go there faster.

(03-09-2014 01:47 PM)phil.a Wrote:  When you know where the "edges" are between absolute and relative, perhaps you will let me know!

Traditionally, thermodynamic systems are classed as either open, closed, or isolated, based on the nature of interactions occurring between the system and its surroundings. I suspect that you are quite aware of this, and are merely being facetious.

As I literally just said, and you agreed with, I took your use of "absolute" to refer to thermodynamically isolated systems. As such - and this is a very trivial observation - there cannot be any isolated systems within the universe so far as we are concerned, because if we interact with them they are by definition not isolated from us.

Whether interaction is significant is then a more useful question. In most cases most interaction is not.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Hello!

At home and posting on a REAL keyboard on a REAL computer! Big Grin

Sadly, at work I can only crow peck away on my phone and copy-pasting/editing things always suck.

(03-09-2014 12:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Can someone please explain to me me in rational terms what exactly "woo" means?

It sounds to me like name-calling, which I view as a more modern version of primitive spell-casting (throwing words at something we fear in an attempt to take it's power away).

Perhaps it's not though? Perhaps it's a reference to a highly rational and facts-based theory on things :-)

Greatly looking forward to having a rational and facts-based discussion on this interesting concept "woo" :-)

Phil

Well.. since there's been link through to here=> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

Ans it describes it an an e[ithet I still see no justification for your next post.......

(03-09-2014 12:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Ok so it's as I thought?

As long as it's just name-calling then I am happy to ignore it.

Name-calling is a truly fascinating thing. In my opinion it is literally the remnants of irrational spell-casting as that still exists in modern reality, as it's the attempt to take someone's or some thing's power away just by throwing words at them/it.

Sometimes, it really "does work", in the sense that by insulting someone remotely over the internet it can be possible to unsettle them and affect their behaviour. Insofar as one is successful at actually affecting them, "magic" is still alive and well in the modern world.

Anyway, I digress, but do carry on casting spells if you think it will work :-)

Phil

While I may have commented that your post and the ideas within it do not match any reality I am aware of, In no way shape or form did I ever post anything along the lines of "You are an idiot." (Other than just then as a descriptive point, hence the " )

So... please educate myself as to how your above posting in any way, shape or form seems/comes close to matching reality and please refrain from typing words into my meanings.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
03-09-2014, 02:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2014 02:56 PM by Wicked Clown.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
whether there is evil outside of what the human mind interprets as evil, it is good to know what is right and wrong and to recognize the actions of Jeffrey Dahmer for example as wrong and wicked.

the issue of labeling something evil becomes erroneous when people start to a tribute evil or immoral , to behaviour that is harmless like an unmarried couple having intercourse or eating pork or drinking alcohol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: