Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:03 PM)pablo Wrote:  If he could just show that the rock intended to do something other than crush the guy, then unintentionally killing him is plausible.

Your arguments boils down to: "While we can say that man was killed in a fluke accident, we can't say he was killed "unintentionally", even though the terms are synonymous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:03 PM)pablo Wrote:  If he could just show that the rock intended to do something other than crush the guy, then unintentionally killing him is plausible.

Your arguments boils down to: "While we can say that man was killed in a fluke accident, we can't say he was killed "unintentionally", even though the terms are synonymous.

They aren't synonymous they way you attempt to use them.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:03 PM)pablo Wrote:  If he could just show that the rock intended to do something other than crush the guy, then unintentionally killing him is plausible.

That rock is an innocent non-conscious entity that should be allowed to roll free!!!!!

A rock cannot be innocent or guilty either. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
12-08-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't understand the use of the word "intent" or "random" or "fluke" or "accident" with respect to the existence of the universe as described scientifically.

So what are you arguing here? That there's a disparity in what these terms mean in a scientific sense, as opposed to a colloquial sense?

Are you arguing that the terms can be applied, but that I'm implying them wrongly, while RocketSurgeon is applying them correctly: ""It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.?

Or is what he said inappropriate in your view as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They aren't synonymous they way you attempt to use them.


I attempt to use them synonymously. If you thought otherwise, then you'd be mistaken.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:10 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That rock is an innocent non-conscious entity that should be allowed to roll free!!!!!

A rock cannot be innocent or guilty either. Facepalm

bleh, semantics

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't understand the use of the word "intent" or "random" or "fluke" or "accident" with respect to the existence of the universe as described scientifically.

So what are you arguing here? That there's a disparity in what these terms mean in a scientific sense, as opposed to a colloquial sense?

Are you arguing that the terms can be applied, but that I'm implying them wrongly, while RocketSurgeon is applying them correctly: ""It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.?

Or is what he said inappropriate in your view as well?

Show me where they use that term.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-08-2015, 02:19 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't understand the use of the word "intent" or "random" or "fluke" or "accident" with respect to the existence of the universe as described scientifically.

So what are you arguing here? That there's a disparity in what these terms mean in a scientific sense, as opposed to a colloquial sense?

Are you arguing that the terms can be applied, but that I'm implying them wrongly, while RocketSurgeon is applying them correctly: ""It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.?

Or is what he said inappropriate in your view as well?

The way you view the argument for "accidents" or "flukes" or an "unintentional" universe are based on your bias that they are (and I am quoting here) "absurd." And that is because you don't fucking understand what those terms mean.

Then you imply that the idea that an unintentional universe is a claim. Then you imply a universe where intent can exist with respect to the universe (but then don't respond to that claim ever again).

Here, I will say it one last time for you. So read this slowly.

Probability that the universe arose through natural means (a product of the parameters in the universe) is >0 and ~100% as we have evidence through observation and experiment that this is the case.

The probability that the universe was intentionally or unintentionally created is fucking 0, unless you have evidence of a conscious entity that could create it intentionally or unintentionally.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
12-08-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what are you arguing here? That there's a disparity in what these terms mean in a scientific sense, as opposed to a colloquial sense?

Are you arguing that the terms can be applied, but that I'm implying them wrongly, while RocketSurgeon is applying them correctly: ""It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.?

Or is what he said inappropriate in your view as well?

Show me where they use that term.

There should have been an end quote there. I was quoting RocketSurgeon, so you should probably ask him that, not me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 02:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Show me where they use that term.

There should have been an end quote there. I was quoting RocketSurgeon, so you should probably ask him that, not me.

Yeah, I don't see anywhere he or I have used those terms. Try again.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: