(December 17, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Please do. It'd make a nice change from being paraphrased.

I was hoping you's say yes. You said--and this what was said in its entirety and not taken out of context--:

Quote:I cry at a lot of things. Despite being Cyberman, I admit to having human feelings. If that's not spiritual, I would happily accede to an upgrade to my vocabulary algorithm.

Though the words “feeling” and “spiritual” are inseparably related, they do not mean the the same thing. This statement uses the word “spiritual” to mean “feeling” even though the words are not equivalent. It's like saying the keel of a ship is the ship itself. It's this kind of frivolous misuse of words that leads to so much confusion.

Rather than admit to misspeaking, what followed was a defense of the undefensible.

It is possible that FSM exists.
If it is possible that FSM exists, then FSM exists is some possible world.
If FSM exists in some possible world, FSM exists in every possible world.
If FSM exists in every possible world, FSM exists in the actual world.
If FSM exists in the actual world, then FSM exists.
Therefore, FSM exists.

So why arn't you a pastafarian OP?

Also this is a great resource for debunking the ontological argument: https://www.youtube.com/user/AntiCitizenX/videos

(December 17, 2015 at 4:10 pm)Reflex Wrote:

(December 17, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Please do. It'd make a nice change from being paraphrased.

I was hoping you's say yes. You said--and this what was said in its entirety and not taken out of context--:

Quote:I cry at a lot of things. Despite being Cyberman, I admit to having human feelings. If that's not spiritual, I would happily accede to an upgrade to my vocabulary algorithm.

Though the words “feeling” and “spiritual” are inseparably related, they do not mean the the same thing. This statement uses the word “spiritual” to mean “feeling” even though the words are not equivalent. It's like saying the keel of a ship is the ship itself. It's this kind of frivolous misuse of words that leads to so much confusion.

Rather than admit to misspeaking, what followed was a defense of the undefensible.

From Wikipedia.

Quote:Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity, personal growth, or blissful experience. Traditionally, spirituality refers to a process of re-formation of the personality but there is no precise definition of spirituality

Note the phrases that link it to feelings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

If you understand what a maximally great being is then you know it can't be an anthropomorphic cause.

(December 17, 2015 at 4:45 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: From Wikipedia.

Quote:Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity, personal growth, or blissful experience. Traditionally, spirituality refers to a process of re-formation of the personality but there is no precise definition of spirituality

Note the phrases that link it to feelings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

Oh. Wiki. Now there's a reliable source. 

Thank you, DBP. Now perhaps our friend would enlighten us as to how my comment supports the assertion that "It's not uncommon for posters here to use "people make their own meaning" as an excuse to have words mean whatever they want them to mean and say to hell with their etymology." in light of that and similar attempts at the definition. You disappointed me, kneejerk, I was truly hoping for something more substantial than an attempt to twist a statement of my emotional state into a commentary of my integrity. And even if you do demonstrate conclusively some contradiction in things I've said over the years, so fucking what? Guess what - I never claimed perfection in anything I say or do, especially when speaking of personal matters that have nothing to do with you. I am completely open to being shown to be wrong - when I am - and completely open to learn from my errors. How about you? Or are you only concerned with self-aggrandisation?

DBP's post is a excellent example of carelessness. If you read a little further in the article, you'll see that Wikipedia's introductory "definition" has little or nothing in common with the word's etymology, which is much more specific. Overall, it is a grand example what happens when words are carelessly used over time: they lose their specificity and dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness.

(December 17, 2015 at 5:10 pm)Reflex Wrote: Oh. Wiki. Now there's a reliable source. 

Right, it must be your superior intellect that allows you to gloss over the two explanatory notes and four unique references cited for just those two sentences.

(December 17, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Cato Wrote:

(December 17, 2015 at 5:10 pm)Reflex Wrote: Oh. Wiki. Now there's a reliable source. 

Right, it must be your superior intellect that allows you to gloss over the two explanatory notes and four unique references cited for just those two sentences.

You mean the ones that have nothing to do with the etymology of the word?

Anyway, since this thread is about the ontological argument, I will state unambiguously that I am not a fan. In fact, I don't think an argument can be made that proves God's existence. But insight goes where reason fails: many if not most of science's great leaps in understanding were products of insight rather than linear thinking and studiousness.

A maximally great being defined as god would simply mean the greatest being in the universe is god. Since I'm absolutely fabulous, and obviously exist, I guess that makes me god. Now worship me. And none of that blood sacrifices. Vodka and cash make great sacrifices. Gum will suffice if you're unable to acquire either of those things because you're poor but not because you're cheap.