what no thread about burying mohammed in an unmarked grave?

[littlebabyjesus]

Best of luck. After three months of it I'm not sure what will start to grate the most, the patronising tone from the opposite camp or the smug assertion that you are wrong and they are right.

Every time phil comes on here with this schtick, he reveals a little more of the stuff I think he's got wrong that leads him to his position.

It makes me feel the need to nudge him in the right direction. Perhaps foolishly, I think there is a chance he will realise he is wrong about what thought is, what concepts are, and what consciousness is.

 

[phildwyer]

Best of luck. After three months of it I'm not sure what will start to grate the most, the patronising tone from the opposite camp or the smug assertion that you are wrong and they are right.

God you guys are so sensitive.

But I suspect the truth is that your rage results from the challenge to your previously unexamined assumptions. It can be a disconcerting experience.

 

[Humberto]

God you guys are so sensitive.

But I suspect the truth is that your rage results from the challenge to your previously unexamined assumptions. It can be a disconcerting experience.

You can prove God? Shit or get off the pot.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

God you guys are so sensitive.

But I suspect the truth is that your rage results from the challenge to your previously unexamined assumptions. It can be a disconcerting experience.

Oh come now. Engage here. You might learn something.

 

[phildwyer]

You can prove God? Shit or get off the pot.

Alright. The best way is probably for me to advance my initial proposition, then wait until everyone has either agreed or objected, then answer all the objections. And so on, from point to point.

That way, no one can cheat and claim that they weren´t convinced by an earlier point. We will proceed at the pace of the slowest, naturally, but this is fairly simple stuff and it shouldn´t take too long.

Alright then?

First proposition: experience exists.

Now, do I hear any objection to that? Or shall we proceed further?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

First proposition: experience exists.

Last propostion: experience exists.

 

[Humberto]

Experience exists? Ok Phil.

 

[quiquaquo]

God you guys are so sensitive.

But I suspect the truth is that your rage results from the challenge to your previously unexamined assumptions. It can be a disconcerting experience.

Are you a Muslim, Phil?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

'experience exists'

That is something we can know, but not demonstrate. (I would contend that it is the 'godel statement' of existence, the necessary logical statement that cannot be proved within the system, but can be known to be true.)

And that's it.

No more.

No working back from that to an ideal.

Plato was wrong.

'Experience exists' is both the beginning and the end of your argument.

 

[free spirit]

Alright. The best way is probably for me to advance my initial proposition, then wait until everyone has either agreed or objected, then answer all the objections. And so on, from point to point.

That way, no one can cheat and claim that they weren´t convinced by an earlier point. We will proceed at the pace of the slowest, naturally, but this is fairly simple stuff and it shouldn´t take too long.

Alright then?

First proposition: experience exists.

Now, do I hear any objection to that? Or shall we proceed further?

no, that really isn't the best way, it;s the best way of you drawing out a thread for so long that everyone loses the will to live waiting for the big reveal that never comes.

Spit it out if you're going to.

 

[Humberto]

no, that really isn't the best way, it;s the best way of you drawing out a thread for so long that everyone loses the will to live waiting for the big reveal that never comes.

Spit it out if you're going to.

Obviously he's a blagger.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

phil, I'm going to patronise you here.

Go away and study mathematics. Study logic some more, and have a think about the nature of tautology. Think about what it is you can say about experience. Specifically, study Godel's incompleteness theorem, and think about how this might apply here. Think about the idea that all logical systems are tautologies. And think about how everything you say loops back onto itself.

It is high time you grew out of this.

 

[phildwyer]

Experience exists? Ok Phil.

OK.

I see everyone agrees with me so far. LBJ makes some trivial quibbles, but I assume that even he is on board with this.

But I don´t want any cheating this time, so to make absolutely sure I´ll wait until tomorrow morning before proceeding further.

 

[N_igma]

There is a 1,000 plus post thread where phil tries to prove the existence of god. He was wrong there and he's wrong here...much to the prophet Mohammed's chagrin

 

[free spirit]

if there were a god he'd surely not allow us to be forced to go through this again.

Therefore, rationally, I conclude that god can't exist - at least not the sort of god I'd want to worship.

 

[N_igma]

if there were a god he'd surely not allow us to be forced to go through this again.

Therefore, rationally, I conclude that god can't exist - at least not the sort of god I'd want to worship.

Oh any theist god is a complete wanker. There's no reason why an all knowing and all powerful god would let millions of children die a year for fuck all reason other than the fact they come from poor countries. Or just let people die for no reason in any instance. From a Christian perspective why not just forgive us out sins in the first place instead of sending your own son down who is basically you to be crucified and give us all a big fuck off guilt trip? The reason is that it's all bollocks so go fuck yourselves cunts!

 

[DotCommunist]

I ran phils schtick past ma, specifically the experience bit. She saw it straight away and said that well if you posit that god is a function of human experience you are basically positing god as a function of reality, a product of existence rather than the creator of. This is the thinking that leads some branches of heretical christianity to deny the divinity of christ.

Thats what she recons anyway.

 

[N_igma]

^^ your ma actually said that^^

 

[DotCommunist]

^^ your ma actually said that^^

she took longer to say it and quoted scripture as well. She has a hnd level theology qualification and has been attending bible study (house group) pretty much every week (midweek) for all my days. Carries a big 'disciples study bible' crabbed in all margins with her notes going back years. Blocks the bookcase with concordances, commentaries and god-books (rhienard bonke lol).
She's a ballache to argue theology with though because if you transgress into the realms of matrialism and logic she just falls back on the 'I have faith' defence. Gets you coming and going

 

[N_igma]

she took longer to say it and quoted scripture as well. She has a hnd level theology qualification and has been attending bible study (house group) pretty much every week (midweek) for all my days. Carries a big 'disciples study bible' crabbed in all margins with her notes going back years. Blocks the bookcase with concordances, commentaries and god-books (rhienard bonke lol).
She's a ballache to argue theology with though because if you transgress into the realms of matrialism and logic she just falls back on the 'I have faith' defence. Gets you coming and going

Shit mate there's no way out of that level of bullshit too!

 

[phildwyer]

Oh any theist god is a complete wanker. There's no reason why an all knowing and all powerful god would let millions of children die a year for fuck all reason other than the fact they come from poor countries. Or just let people die for no reason in any instance. From a Christian perspective why not just forgive us out sins in the first place instead of sending your own son down who is basically you to be crucified and give us all a big fuck off guilt trip? The reason is that it's all bollocks so go fuck yourselves cunts!

No. The reason is that God is beyond good and evil.

But anyway, I do not want to get sidetracked into the characteristics of God yet. First we must establish His existence.

Dot Communists Mum can post by proxy if she wishes. But as yet I do not hear her or anyone else raise a meaningful objection to the proposition ¨experience exists.¨

I am in Mexico and 11 hours ahead of Brits, so I will wait until 6pm GMT. If no one can come up with an objection by then, we will move on to my second proposition.

 

[N_igma]

No. The reason is that God is beyond good and evil.

But anyway, I do not want to get sidetracked into the characteristics of God yet. First we must establish His existence.

Dot Communists Mum can post by proxy if she wishes. But as yet I do not hear her or anyone else raise a meaningful objection to the proposition ¨experience exists.¨

I am in Mexico and 11 hours ahead of Brits, so I will wait until 6pm GMT. If no one can come up with an objection by then, we will move on to my second proposition.

11 hours ahead? What part of Mexico are you in some island off Vanuatu?

Your problem phil is that your whole argument relies on a tenuous philosophical argument which posits that humanity and our own consciousness is somehow unique and should take centre point. It's a complete fluke that we are here to discuss this and we're going in the wrong direction to debate your arguments.

 

[phildwyer]

11 hours ahead? What part of Mexico are you in some island off Vanuatu?

Behind then. It is 9.43pm.

Your problem phil is that your whole argument relies on a tenuous philosophical argument which posits that humanity and our own consciousness is somehow unique and should take centre point.

Human consciousness does have to be the starting point. Why? Because we have no other. We must look at the world as human beings, n´est-pas?

 

[N_igma]

Behind then. It is 9.43pm.

Human consciousness does have to be the starting point. Why? Because we have no other. We must look at the world as human beings, n´est-pas?

So if humans didn't exist there would be nothing? A solipsistic but useless argument. We aren't special. The fact that we are here means everything but means nothing at the same time. The universe will continue to be random regardless.

 

[DotCommunist]

Dot Communists Mum can post by proxy if she wishes.

not much point really, (anyway she is in bedsville) you're doing that thing where you use sort of reason to posit the existence of god, she believes in the actual physicaly manifesting existence of a tri-part christian deity based on unshakable faith.

if you have to go back to sort-of first principles and define what is human and what is experience then dressing god in the conext thereof, you aren't really on the same page as her sort of believer.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

First proposition: experience exists.

Define experience and existence.

 

[JimW]

I seem to recall the abhidharma explains human experiences in a way that sees them as self-generating moments (dharmas) that have no actual experiencer as they don't agree there's such a thing as an abiding self. Just did a Gooogle trying to find an explanation from someone properly versed in this but the one really relevant looking paper was paywalled, tho you can read a fair bit: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-014-9354-2#page-1

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Human consciousness does have to be the starting point. Why? Because we have no other. We must look at the world as human beings, n´est-pas?

First, if you want to throw french aphorisms about, can you at least get them right: "n'est-ce pas".

Secondly, are you really trying to argue that our species tiny, brief existence is the starting point.

 

[phildwyer]

So if humans didn't exist there would be nothing? A solipsistic but useless argument. We aren't special. The fact that we are here means everything but means nothing at the same time. The universe will continue to be random regardless.

It is not a matter of being ¨special.¨

We are human beings. Therefore we see things as human beings see them.

That's it. That´s all.

I have to say, I see nothing controversial in this whatsoever.

 

[phildwyer]

First, if you want to throw french aphorisms about, can you at least get them right: "n'est-ce pas".

That is not an aphorism.

Secondly, are you really trying to argue that our species tiny, brief existence is the starting point.

I am saying that, as human beings, we can only experience what human beings experience.

I´m sorry, but that seems completely fucking obvious to me.