Attributes, Probability and the God Index

[Darkstar]

This argument was my response to John V's view that God isn't omni x3 according to the Bible, because my argument on non-belief (different thread) requires that God is at least omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Well, I don't think he'd have to be omnibenevolent to not want us to burn. At least slightly benevolent. Not that I think the god of the bible is particularly benevolent, but apparently he can redefine that word at will.

[Violet]

Well, I don't think he'd have to be omnibenevolent to not want us to burn. At least slightly benevolent. Not that I think the god of the bible is particularly benevolent, but apparently he can redefine that word at will.

Who wouldn't want to burn a pest? I'd say it'd take an omnibenevolent being simply to allow us to live if our own devices say we should.

Actually, that's probably why it won't let you into space. The plague stops here. At least, that's what it figures... but if this goes on long enough, I swear to my people's gods that I will fucking uplift your piece of shit race.

[FallentoReason]

Ah, the ontological argument.. sort of.

The fallacy with that is that a concept in our head is different to an object in the real world. I can think of a stapler, but that concept in my head isn't an actual stapler (because that would hurt!). Therefore these all-powerful beings that we can imagine to exist are just concepts and in no way does that entail they actually exist.

No... it's the argument that logic itself is invalid. An omnipotent being doesn't necessarily have to be bound by logic.... but you have a bunch of nonsense there.

Did you use logic to propose logic isn't bound to the being?

The pain itself could easily be illusory. If you are capable of using your mind to create pleasure in yourself... you are also capable of using your mind to hurt you. Even your perception of pain and pleasure *itself* is all in your head. Everything might as well 'be just a concept'... but I would ask you this: how does is conceptual existence not 'actual' existence? Sounds like a NTS to me... maybe that'll talk to you better than cluing you in, you logic-impaired zealot.

What I meant by "it would be painful" is that if the concept of a stapler in my mind was literally a stapler, then I would be dead, as a stapler inside my brain wouldn't work very well for me. All I'm saying is that a concept and an object representing said concept are two different things.

What's NTS?
Concepts are abstract things. Do you have evidence to prove they exist in reality? They only exist inside the mind.

A concept in your head is all that objects in 'the real world' are.

I don't see how you can conclude that. The bus I take to uni isn't a concept. It's a solid object I can interact with.

Observe a worm... a pitiful, nonsapient being: how would they perceive the very real television in front of them? Go further, and say it was reduced in size such as to be proportional to humankind's televisions... the experience is totally different. But both experiences are real.

I don't think I'm following.. worms don't have eyes.. so they can't experience tv like we can. So what?

Observe the pitiful human, a sapient being... but it has neither been to space, nor does it appear to have the capacity to escape logic's rule. Existence is. Organization of existence into separate 'things' is the barest of observations that you do not observe the whole.

Are you the type of person that believes NASA never went to the moon?

Sorry, I'm really not following what your argument is...

---

This argument was my response to John V's view that God isn't omni x3 according to the Bible, because my argument on non-belief (different thread) requires that God is at least omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Well, I don't think he'd have to be omnibenevolent to not want us to burn. At least slightly benevolent. Not that I think the god of the bible is particularly benevolent, but apparently he can redefine that word at will.

Well, the value that is chosen for that particular attribute is meaningless, as God ceases to exist if all values are equally possible.

[Violet]

Did you use logic to propose logic isn't bound to the being?

I could, if you want me to. But ultimately, if you're relying on a circular logic to support anything, you're nuts. It's why I try my damnedest to avoid logic wherever it's found.

What I meant by "it would be painful" is that if the concept of a stapler in my mind was literally a stapler, then I would be dead, as a stapler inside my brain wouldn't work very well for me. All I'm saying is that a concept and an object representing said concept are two different things.

Are they different things? Are you dreaming again, Susan? Looks like a nightmare... OHIMSOSORRY-I didn't realize that was just you in the mirror TT__TT

What's NTS?
Concepts are abstract things. Do you have evidence to prove they exist in reality? They only exist inside the mind.

No True Scotsman would ask what an NTS was!

I can not only provide proof that everything exists, I can also prove that all things exist, and I can even go ahead and prove that nothing exists too... now that's something. What's better, I can do it all with just logic. Abstract things ain't things and don't exist, I'm totally with you broski. I mean, the mind couldn't possibly be a part of reality at all... THAT WOULD BE SENSELESS. Madness, even. Time for pointless music to go with your nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=682pneYoP0c

I don't see how you can conclude that. The bus I take to uni isn't a concept. It's a solid object I can interact with.

And I'll bet you think that, don't you? And your evidence that the bus is not all in your head is... where? Solipsists got it right, doesn't stop them from being faithless whores. Only thing that you can demonstrate exists is *YOU*, and you can't even know 'WHAT THE QUALITIES OF YOUR EXISTENCE ARE' without taking your observations upon faith. All that must be necessarily true about objective existence... is that 'you' are part of it. You might be all of it, or some of it... but one thing is for sure: you aren't none of it.

Are you the type of person that believes NASA never went to the moon?

Sorry, I'm really not following what your argument is...

Yeah, you pulled that stunt some 50 years ago... where is your goddamn second planet? YOUR SECOND SYSTEM. Exploration is cool and all... but it means jack-shit if you aren't doing anything with it.

Might as well save the money you spent on the scouts and just tech so far you never have to leave your home planet. It just hits me right here to watch another race failing... sooner or later, you're going to erupt in a war so bad it takes your planet from an ideal garden world to an arid desert planet. My people don't care as much as other races do... but it's still a shame to annihilate all of those pretty vistas.

I don't think I'm following.. worms don't have eyes.. so they can't experience tv like we can. So what?

Wait... Earth-worms don't have eyes?! JUST HOW FREAKING PRIMITIVE IS YOUR PLANET?!



Anyway, you just proved my point: they can't experience tv like we can. I'll let you think on it

[FallentoReason]

Did you use logic to propose logic isn't bound to the being?

I could, if you want me to. But ultimately, if you're relying on a circular logic to support anything, you're nuts.

It sounded like you in fact were using circular logic to be able to say that you can logically show logic doesn't apply to God. Clearly, you're using logic to investigate what it is about this being that does't allow you to apply logic to it.

It's why I try my damnedest to avoid logic wherever it's found.

Geewiz! Then why should I believe anything you write has any bearing on anything if it isn't grounded on any reasoning whatsoever? That's not a very convincing thing to say just before you delve into logical arguments about why reality is in my mind.

What I meant by "it would be painful" is that if the concept of a stapler in my mind was literally a stapler, then I would be dead, as a stapler inside my brain wouldn't work very well for me. All I'm saying is that a concept and an object representing said concept are two different things.

Are they different things? Are you dreaming again, Susan? Looks like a nightmare... OHIMSOSORRY-I didn't realize that was just you in the mirror TT__TT

Ask a surgeon to insert a stapler into your mind, then get back to me, if possible.

I can not only provide proof that everything exists, I can also prove that all things exist, and I can even go ahead and prove that nothing exists too... now that's something. What's better, I can do it all with just logic. Abstract things ain't things and don't exist, I'm totally with you broski. I mean, the mind couldn't possibly be a part of reality at all... THAT WOULD BE SENSELESS. Madness, even. Time for pointless music to go with your nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=682pneYoP0c

I think we're using two different definitions of "existence". For something to exist, it needs to occupy a part of space. This undeniably leads to this object having intrinsic properties. Sure enough, under my definition, a concept exists in the mind because there are particles in your mind that give you that thought of the concept. The particles are in no way the same as the particles that make up the object outside your mind where you can see it. Otherwise, that stapler would have killed me by now...

I don't see how you can conclude that. The bus I take to uni isn't a concept. It's a solid object I can interact with.

And I'll bet you think that, don't you? And your evidence that the bus is not all in your head is... where? [/Quote]

Ah, you're right. The concept that I attach to the object is in my mind.. the bus is in my mind. Wait, no it isn't because that wouldn't be very good for my brain.

The concept and the object are two different things.

Solipsists got it right, doesn't stop them from being faithless whores. Only thing that you can demonstrate exists is *YOU*, and you can't even know 'WHAT THE QUALITIES OF YOUR EXISTENCE ARE' without taking your observations upon faith. All that must be necessarily true about objective existence... is that 'you' are part of it. You might be all of it, or some of it... but one thing is for sure: you aren't none of it.

Why do you act as if you are a part of the world? Why do you avoid fire, for example? We're all just floating minds after all.

Wait... Earth-worms don't have eyes?! JUST HOW FREAKING PRIMITIVE IS YOUR PLANET?!



Anyway, you just proved my point: they can't experience tv like we can. I'll let you think on it

Yep. They can't experience tv like us. *twiddles thumbs*

[Violet]

It sounded like you in fact were using circular logic to be able to say that you can logically show logic doesn't apply to God. Clearly, you're using logic to investigate what it is about this being that does't allow you to apply logic to it.

Of course I'm not

Logic is circular... takes as much faith as that one might have in a God. I'm an nonlogicist. We don't do that nonsense 'round these parts.

Geewiz! Then why should I believe anything you write has any bearing on anything if it isn't grounded on any reasoning whatsoever? That's not a very convincing thing to say just before you delve into logical arguments about why reality is in my mind.

Woosh.

As for why you should believe anything I write: I'm always right. Except when I'm not. Which is on Saturday

Ask a surgeon to insert a stapler into your mind, then get back to me, if possible.

Done, she said sure. It feels almost like licorice in the mind

* Violet eats the stapler.

I think we're using two different definitions of "existence". For something to exist, it needs to occupy a part of space. This undeniably leads to this object having intrinsic properties. Sure enough, under my definition, a concept exists in the mind because there are particles in your mind that give you that thought of the concept. The particles are in no way the same as the particles that make up the object outside your mind where you can see it. Otherwise, that stapler would have killed me by now...

Because neurons aren't part of space, and mental activity occurs in some separate non-spacey realm of anti-spaciness which metaphysically takes up no space.

Maybe the cosmos does have intrinsic properties. I highly doubt that you're advanced enough to find these... I know we're not. Anyway, given that you might well have created the entirety of the universe you see: you might end up killing yourself with your mind, and never even seeing it coming XD I recommend not stepping into traffic in this persistent world of yours.

Ah, you're right. The concept that I attach to the object is in my mind.. the bus is in my mind. Wait, no it isn't because that wouldn't be very good for my brain.

The concept and the object are two different things.

Silly boy, thinking 'brain' and 'mind' are the same thing The mind is in the brain, but the mind is not the brain. All of your objects are concepts

Why do you act as if you are a part of the world? Why do you avoid fire, for example? We're all just floating minds after all.

Because I'm a hedonist, sonny. I'm totally down with this all being a nonsensical illusion of an american teenager: I'm having a good time If it ends abruptly once they awaken, well... it's been good fellas.

But you see: I have faith that the world persists outside of myself, and also faith that said world includes more persons than I. However, I note that this is faith on my part, and accept that solipsism is correct in remaining true to logic (a thing which even they must take on faith).

Yep. They can't experience tv like us. *twiddles thumbs*

I wonder what you humans can't experience

[Neo-Scholastic]

For crying out loud Fallen. I cannot keep up with you. I'd love to respond and even start my own threads, but you are just raises too many interesting issues.

[Violet]

For crying out loud Fallen. I cannot keep up with you. I'd love to respond and even start my own threads, but you are just raises too many interesting issues.

Where can I find these so-called 'interesting issues', he's raised?

[FallentoReason]

It sounded like you in fact were using circular logic to be able to say that you can logically show logic doesn't apply to God. Clearly, you're using logic to investigate what it is about this being that does't allow you to apply logic to it.

Of course I'm not

Logic is circular... takes as much faith as that one might have in a God. I'm an nonlogicist. We don't do that nonsense 'round these parts.

Takes as much faith as that one might have in a God.. says the Deist? Why don't you have faith in logic? Ironically, it makes perfect sense for you not to have the same faith in logic because this is in fact illogical and inconsistent with your values.

I can only conclude your world view is solipsism.

Geewiz! Then why should I believe anything you write has any bearing on anything if it isn't grounded on any reasoning whatsoever? That's not a very convincing thing to say just before you delve into logical arguments about why reality is in my mind.

Woosh.

As for why you should believe anything I write: I'm always right. Except when I'm not. Which is on Saturday

Ask a surgeon to insert a stapler into your mind, then get back to me, if possible.

Done, she said sure. It feels almost like licorice in the mind

* Violet Lilly Blossom eats the stapler.

Because neurons aren't part of space, and mental activity occurs in some separate non-spacey realm of anti-spaciness which metaphysically takes up no space.

The neurons making up the concept are different to the particles making up the object.

Maybe the cosmos does have intrinsic properties. I highly doubt that you're advanced enough to find these... I know we're not. Anyway, given that you might well have created the entirety of the universe you see: you might end up killing yourself with your mind, and never even seeing it coming XD I recommend not stepping into traffic in this persistent world of yours.

It's not mine. I can't seem to control what I apparently created. Odd, isn't it?

Silly boy, thinking 'brain' and 'mind' are the same thing The mind is in the brain, but the mind is not the brain. All of your objects are concepts

So the object is "inside" my brain/mind, but yet outside since it doesn't occupy the same physical space as my brain/mind?

Because I'm a hedonist, sonny. I'm totally down with this all being a nonsensical illusion of an american teenager: I'm having a good time If it ends abruptly once they awaken, well... it's been good fellas.

But you see: I have faith that the world persists outside of myself, and also faith that said world includes more persons than I. However, I note that this is faith on my part, and accept that solipsism is correct in remaining true to logic (a thing which even they must take on faith).

Dammit Descartes... this thing is inescapable.

Sure, I mean if you wanted me to concede that I need faith in order to believe reality isn't in my mind, then I happily concede that. Being a Free Thinker, I do actually want to find the evidence/reasons for why the world does indeed exist outside our minds...

---

For crying out loud Fallen. I cannot keep up with you. I'd love to respond and even start my own threads, but you are just raises too many interesting issues.

Hah! I'm honestly starting to think philosophy is becoming an unhealthy obsession in my life though...

---

For crying out loud Fallen. I cannot keep up with you. I'd love to respond and even start my own threads, but you are just raises too many interesting issues.

Where can I find these so-called 'interesting issues', he's raised?

Yikes haha.

[Violet]

Takes as much faith as that one might have in a God.. says the Deist? Why don't you have faith in logic? Ironically, it makes perfect sense for you not to have the same faith in logic because this is in fact illogical and inconsistent with your values.

I can only conclude your world view is solipsism.

The deist who has no faith in any particular deities... yes.

And I do have faith in logic. A lot of it, infact. Doesn't mean I'm unwilling to reconsider should logic ever prove to be useless... say, on a metaphysical level.

Poor conclusion, Dexter. What you are looking at here is an existentially nihilistic determinist. Which I can be, because I have faith which solipsists lack.

The neurons making up the concept are different to the particles making up the object.

Alright... your evidence is where?

It's not mine. I can't seem to control what I apparently created. Odd, isn't it?

Because a creator can always perfectly control his creations... right?

So the object is "inside" my brain/mind, but yet outside since it doesn't occupy the same physical space as my brain/mind?

Maybe it does, haven't you been listening?

Dammit Descartes... this thing is inescapable.

Sure, I mean if you wanted me to concede that I need faith in order to believe reality isn't in my mind, then I happily concede that. Being a Free Thinker, I do actually want to find the evidence/reasons for why the world does indeed exist outside our minds...

Consideration: the table is brown, therefore it is. Everything exists (necessarily)... but the only thing that can be demonstrated to exist *objectively* (assuming logic is true)... is me. Or, in your case... you.

Anyways, you're not likely to find a reason in the world as to why the world exists outside your mind, as it would fall to the same flaw

Hah! I'm honestly starting to think philosophy is becoming an unhealthy obsession in my life though...

Don't worry... it is

... Listen, don't take my irreverence personally. I'm just a horrible cruel person who eats goat cheese and stabs children while screaming "WHY WON'T YOU JUST DIE??!!??!!!"