What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: SOB) on 3 Apr 2005 13:34 On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:39:48 -0400, Sister Mary <sm(a)tcn.met> wrote: >>If man screws things up beyond even God's ability to repair them, then >>it is not worth the effort to come back. >So much for omnipotence, eh liar! How sweet of you, Good Sister, calling me a liar. What does that make you? Can God be required to make a rock so large that He cannot lift it? Wouldn't that result in a contradiction? Maybe you need to learn some Metaphysics before you indulge your anti-intellectual bigorty. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" --Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
From: SOB) on 3 Apr 2005 13:39 On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:06:55 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> wrote: >I find I disagree with almost everything you say. > y epistemology is coherentist, which, although it is >subjective I expect you to disagree if you work within subjective reality no matter how you try to make it look objective. >From the point of view of humans, the world appears mutable, okay. >But that may be an excessively human-centered point of view -- in >fact, that is what I think. You deny Physics. I cannot deal with you. Prove to me that you exist using the same subjective reasoning. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" --Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
From: Sister Mary on 3 Apr 2005 14:22 On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:34:58 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:39:48 -0400, Sister Mary <sm(a)tcn.met> wrote: > >>>If man screws things up beyond even God's ability to repair them, then >>>it is not worth the effort to come back. > >>So much for omnipotence, eh liar! > >How sweet of you, Good Sister, calling me a liar. What does that make >you? > Honest. >Can God be required to make a rock so large that He cannot lift it? >Wouldn't that result in a contradiction? > Strawman. What has that got to do with God's OMNIPOTENCE, according to you, baing defeated by mere humans? >Maybe you need to learn some Metaphysics before you indulge your >anti-intellectual bigorty. Did your degree in metaphysics empower you to redefine omnipotence? Nice try with bigotry as the second strawman - what group is the bigotry against?
From: Fred Stone on 3 Apr 2005 15:03 sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in news:42502955.127599137(a)news- server.houston.rr.com: > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:06:55 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> > wrote: > >>I find I disagree with almost everything you say. >> y epistemology is coherentist, which, although it is >>subjective > > I expect you to disagree if you work within subjective reality no > matter how you try to make it look objective. > >>From the point of view of humans, the world appears mutable, okay. >>But that may be an excessively human-centered point of view -- in >>fact, that is what I think. > > You deny Physics. I cannot deal with you. > > Prove to me that you exist using the same subjective reasoning. > That's it, you've forfeited any possible respect for your positions. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
From: Jim Burns on 3 Apr 2005 14:45
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:06:55 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> > wrote: > > >I find I disagree with almost everything you say. > > y epistemology is coherentist, which, although it is > >subjective > > I expect you to disagree if you work within subjective reality no > matter how you try to make it look objective. A little snippy are we today? How did telling you my epistemology is subjective (that's "theory of knowledge" -- that's OK; I know you're embarassed to ask) become trying to make it look objective? > >From the point of view of humans, the world appears mutable, okay. > >But that may be an excessively human-centered point of view -- in > >fact, that is what I think. > > You deny Physics. Well, since I don't know what you mean by Physics, I can't very well deny it. However, I have a BS in /physics/, and I don't deny that. Of course, you snipped my justification for that opinion, which, surprisingly (to you, I'm sure), was entirely based on what the physics (perhaps even the Physics) tells us. > I cannot deal with you. Whatever. Then deal with my arguments. I'd prefer that, anyway. > Prove to me that you exist using the same subjective reasoning. Say "pretty please". Nah, I'll be /especially/ nice. The existence and character of this post (and others in this thread -- you can guess which ones) is most coherently explained by assuming that someone calling himself "Jim Burns" exists and I am that person. Agree, disagree? You are now commanded to prove to me that you exist. You are not allowed to refer to any subjective states. I'd just like to point out /again/ that you've got nothing to get excited about. Even if everything you've written were true (Snork!), you'd still have nothing important, because, in whittling your God-concept down to where you thought you might be able to prove it, you amputated from it any reason an actual live human being would have to care about it. Jim Burns |