To be honest, quoting someone on this forum is difficult when attempting to edit via the default position.

This is what I do:

After clicking on Reply, I click the button, when hovering over it, states View source(ctrl+shift+s).

It makes it much easier to determine how one can edit.

(September 7, 2018 at 9:42 am)negatio Wrote: No, consensus is the means scientists agree, or disagree, among themselves, in their process of progressing in

science. (See: Jurgen Habermas, "Knowledge and Human Interest"). It has nothing to do with popularity!

Precisely what "this" is that?!

Oh, I possess a goddamn solid argument; said argument is staring you directly in the face, however, you cannot

see it. Until you fill me in on the exact meaning of your "this", I cannot clearly fathom what you are trying to tell

me here, although, via your "never" it appears that you possess an ability to predict the future. Shit, if I were

you I would employ a capacity for future prediction at the Kentucky Derby!

Unfortunately, I'm much more familiar with internet nutballs than I am with horses...though one could wonder why I spent so much time with the former to the exclusion of the latter..given that obvious economic incentive.  I can only say, in my defense, that I really hate horses.

(but I do like hats, mint juleps, and losing money!)

Quote:While  you are confident argument is certainly to be found, with you predictive capacity, you should be able to 

describe, for everyone, said presently-absent solid argument; instead of constantly telling me, and telling me,

and telling me, that said argument certainly can be found. So, where is said absent solid argument now?

Sounds to me that you may know what and where the missing argument is.  Please stop continuously telling

about your ghost argument; and, write it out yourself, and, if you cannot, or, will not; mine is the only such

argument on the table, and, if you cannot find the absent argument you are so sure has some type of existence

or other; you are, thereby, thrown onto the possibility of voting mine to be prima facie viable, or not. Negatio. 

It's pretty simple.  If you want to maintain that a god is ontologically inauthentic...and specifically that it is so because it did not know something that our creator ought to know..pick something that 

A.  Is true
and
B.  God didn't know.

Your objection, that the language of law is completely ineffective as regards human determination is..to borrow your own preferred terms, false, prima facie...and more importantly, if it were true, it wouldn't matter, because the god in question is actually supposed to have known just that and makes explicit comment to that end.

Perhaps..instead, you should pick something that is true, and that god didn't know even though, as our creator, it should have?  Like the simplest facts of human origin.  Or, if you wanted to stick with the law fetish, perhaps the contents of specific prohibitions, like a prohibition in envy or lascivious thought.  Surely, our creator would have known that we were incapable of controlling these impulses.  In fairness, perhaps it was, but this, by reference to it's statements of desert, challenges other ontological claims relevant to that god.  Specifically it's omnipotence - could it not have created a creature at least capable of controlling those thoughts (and it did, didn't it, it just didn't do so with us. Plants don't envy.)?  Or, is it not just enough to accept that we are only morally culpable for those things within our control (or accept responsibility for it's own failed actions by reference to it's own metrics)?  Or, is it not merciful enough to forgo any debt on the basis of our own unchosen construction - it's alleged design?  

Or, one could go even more abstract, and question the omniscience of a creator who makes prohibitions without any obvious statements or understanding as to the grounds of those same prohibitions?

All of these would be much more competent arguments against the ontological claims and status of dumb christer god than the mistaken notions that god attempts to rule over us by law (it doesn't), that the language of law is ineffectual (it isn't), and that god didn't know how poorly we'd perform relative to this language (it did).

Now...obviously, the weakness of your own argument is in no way a defense of an alleged gods many fuckups.... or of our system of laws ticks (more accurately the public perception of our system of law) - and those conversations can both be had on solid ground and roughly conform to the conclusion that you reached..even if the reasons for that conclusion, in your formulation..were inaccurate and wholly inadequate, and even though whatever kernel of truth might lie at the heart of your contention has been vastly oversold in the op.

In short, the density of your language was not sufficient for the task of masking the intellectual deficiencies the position contained - even though that is clearly the purpose of it's employment. It is not for a lack of understanding that this argument has been discarded as garbage, precisely the opposite. Neither you nor those you choose to cite were so brilliant that a common person, in common language, is incapable of understanding the contentions made and pointing out where and why they are in error.

Capisce?

(September 7, 2018 at 10:11 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 7, 2018 at 9:42 am)negatio Wrote: No, consensus is the means scientists agree, or disagree, among themselves, in their process of progressing in

science. (See: Jurgen Habermas, "Knowledge and Human Interest"). It has nothing to do with popularity!

Precisely what "this" is that?!

Oh, I possess a goddamn solid argument; said argument is staring you directly in the face, however, you cannot

see it. Until you fill me in on the exact meaning of your "this", I cannot clearly fathom what you are trying to tell

me here, although, via your "never" it appears that you possess an ability to predict the future. Shit, if I were

you I would employ a capacity for future prediction at the Kentucky Derby!

Unfortunately, I'm much more familiar with internet nutballs than I am with horses...though one could wonder why I spent so much time with the former to the exclusion of the latter..given that obvious economic incentive.  I can only say, in my defense, that I really hate horses.

(but I do like hats, mint juleps, and losing money!)

Quote:While  you are confident argument is certainly to be found, with you predictive capacity, you should be able to 

describe, for everyone, said presently-absent solid argument; instead of constantly telling me, and telling me,

and telling me, that said argument certainly can be found. So, where is said absent solid argument now?

Sounds to me that you may know what and where the missing argument is.  Please stop continuously telling

about your ghost argument; and, write it out yourself, and, if you cannot, or, will not; mine is the only such

argument on the table, and, if you cannot find the absent argument you are so sure has some type of existence

or other; you are, thereby, thrown onto the possibility of voting mine to be prima facie viable, or not. Negatio. 

It's pretty simple.  If you want to maintain that a god is ontologically inauthentic...and specifically that it is so because it did not know something that our creator ought to know..pick something that 

A.  Is true
and
B.  God didn't know.

Your objection, that the language of law is completely ineffective as regards human determination is..to borrow your own preferred terms, false, prima facie...and more importantly, if it were true, it wouldn't matter, because the god in question is actually supposed to have known just that and makes explicit comment to that end.

Perhaps..instead, you should pick something that is true, and that god didn't know even though, as our creator, it should have?  Like the simplest facts of human origin.  Or, if you wanted to stick with the law fetish, perhaps the contents of specific prohibitions, like a prohibition in envy or lascivious thought.  Surely, our creator would have known that we were incapable of controlling these impulses.  In fairness, perhaps it was, but this, by reference to it's statements of desert, challenges other ontological claims relevant to that god.  Specifically it's omnipotence - could it not have created a creature at least capable of controlling those thoughts (and it did, didn't it, it just didn't do so with us.  Plants don't envy.)?  Or, is it not just enough to accept that we are only morally culpable for those things within our control (or accept responsibility for it's own failed actions by reference to it's own metrics)?  Or, is it not merciful enough to forgo any debt on the basis of our own unchosen construction - it's alleged design?  

Or, one could go even more abstract, and question the omniscience of a creator who makes prohibitions without any obvious statements or understanding as to the grounds of those same prohibitions?

All of these would be much more competent arguments against the ontological claims and status of dumb christer god than the mistaken notions that god attempts to rule over us by law (it doesn't), that the language of law is ineffectual (it isn't), and that god didn't know how poorly we'd perform relative to this language (it did).

Now...obviously, the weakness of your own argument is in no way a defense of an alleged gods many fuckups.... or of our system of laws ticks (more accurately the public perception of our system of law) - and those conversations can both be had on solid ground and roughly conform to the conclusion that you reached..even if the reasons for that conclusion, in your formulation..were inaccurate and wholly inadequate, and even though whatever kernel of truth might lie at the heart of your contention has been vastly oversold in the op.

In short, the density of your language was not sufficient for the task of masking the intellectual deficiencies the position contained - even though that is clearly the purpose of it's employment.  It is not for a lack of understanding that this argument has been discarded as garbage, precisely the opposite.  Neither you nor those you choose to cite were so brilliant that a common person, in common language, is incapable of understanding the contentions made and pointing out where and why they are in error.

Capisce?

But I did pick something that is true. And, that something is known in the world, since 1943, as "the double nihilation", and, is the only way which men can originate their acts. God, by demanding men be determined to act or not act by his law demonstrates that he is not reflectively conscious of the doubly nihilatively mode whereby man originates his acts, which, demonstrates that he cannot be Deity.  I will read the remainder of your post later.  And, by the way, I had you on my ignore list, you somehow hacked in twice now, that is such bullshit. I am avoiding you now because of the horrid shit you pulled when a Jihadist Muslim was visiting my thread, and, that was a racically stupid thing to do!  The dude was absolutely beautiful and beautifully writes long long thoughts, without punctuation. You are too dangerous to associate with, you are going to get us both killed via your insane cracker bullshit. Negatio.

(September 7, 2018 at 11:10 am)negati Wrote: But I did pick something that is true.

Even ignoring that it isn't, why would it matter, since the god in question contends that we cannot be righteous before law, that we are incapable?

Quote:And, that something is known in the world, since 1943, as "the double nihilation", and, is the only way which men can originate their acts. God, by demanding men be determined to act or not act by his law demonstrates that he is not reflectively conscious of the doubly nihilatively mode whereby man originates his acts, which, demonstrates that he cannot be Deity.  I will read the remainder of your post later.  And, by the way, I had you on my ignore list, you somehow hacked in twice now, that is such bullshit. I am avoiding you now because of the horrid shit you pulled when a Jihadist Muslim was visiting my thread, and, that was a racically stupid thing to do!  The dude was absolutely beautiful and beautifully writes long long thoughts, without punctuation. You are too dangerous to associate with, you are going to get us both killed via your insane cracker bullshit. Negatio.

"You are too dangerous to associate with, you are going to get us both killed via your insane cracker bullshit. "

   
 
   

I'm waiting for the nubbin to realize that cracker is a term of endearment among floridians.  I get that I'm supposed to be upset by it, and by the parenthesized aside about how we so totally fucked black girls.....but I'm just not.

(and we do...ladies......)

(September 7, 2018 at 11:43 am)Khemikal Wrote: I'm waiting for the nubbin to realize that cracker is a term of endearment among floridians.  I get that I'm supposed to be upset by it, and by the parenthesized aside about how we so totally fucked black girls.....but I'm just not.

(and we do...ladies......)

Guessing, here - is it something to do with horses?

Boru

It is, actually, lol. Or at least it was...now it's just a word for grimey ass can-do floridians. It's even related to the fact that, now, in kentucky, I don't fuck with the derby. Red Mile is my shit!

Crackers drove supply carts when the rest of the confederate logistic chain had collapsed. They were too poor to own slaves and regarded by the social elite as white skinned blacks (which many -if not most- were, in fact) - but they got the job done from a place that no one else could make work which was wholly beyond the reach of union forces (or any person not highly resistant to malaria and other assorted fevers as well as venomous insects/snakes).

You could hear them coming and going all day and night, the Hoggeville Freight Train. Upon hearing the sound, people would exclaim..."there go the crackers!". Most of the horses died en-route, under strain, needing to be replaced leg by leg.

(September 5, 2018 at 7:26 pm)emjay Wrote: My guess is B with modifications; that the original intent was just to share his theory on a philosophy forum and debate it. But since that went down like a lead balloon, partly because of the size and style of the OP and partly because of his technical incompetence with the site, it just became an onslaught of information and suspicion coming from all directions. I'm not the best teacher... Kevin's a much better... much more concise teacher than me; so you've got Kevin saying one thing, in his style, me saying it in another style, you saying it in another style etc... it would be easy to be overwhelmed with too much information and no idea where to start. I know that feeling well. So that on top of suspicion of ulterior motives coming from every corner, would be an understandably unpleasant, frustrating, and angering experience if you really were a total newbie to forums, and all you wanted to do was share your theories for discussion for the first time.







Maybe a good solution then, and a show of good faith from negatio would be a truce as it were... if we all just took a time out from this thread for a long while. That way he could study all the technical advice that's been given in and out of thread and let it sink in at his own pace, without the pressure of a constantly moving thread. Then as soon as he was ready, could come back in. I've already told him by PM that it's possible to practice BBCode and laying out posts in a draft PM with no recipient that you just constantly edit, preview, and save. Doing that would allow him to practice and experiment, but without clogging up the forum with the results of that experimentation. What say you negatio?

Wow, emjay.  I had perused the above very long  thread a couple-three times, and entirely missed the above two beautiful thoughts by what I am pretty sure is emjay. For me, when in the above box, it is almost impossible tell precisely who is speaking.

The first thinking is a beautifully sympathetic description of precisely what I am experiencing, and, I could fill that description further.

emjay, the second thought is a fantastic adaptation to the problem, but, then, if I drop-out, I'll miss out on stuff like happened yesterday.  A beautiful Jihadist guy, who writes radically, radically, beautifully, visited my thread.  I was engaging Nine when Khemikal barged-in and started shoving swine bullshit insults at Nine, I was so embarrassed. Nine is a dynamite writer that I may never hear from again, thanks to Khemical's horrid, destructive sense of humor.

I really, really need your advice quick-like-a-mouse-today emjay, and, will privately e-mail you...Negatio.