We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species. — universeness
Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible? — Benj96
Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc. — Benj96
Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. — Benj96
For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation. — Benj96
Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.
No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."
Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts? — Benj96
They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based — universeness
I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that. — universeness
And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself. — universeness
Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS. — universeness
Any of these seems like BS to you Mr Benj? — universeness
Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got. — Benj96
You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethcis? — Benj96
And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? — Benj96
Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted. — Benj96
Go ahead, explain! — universeness
don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural than the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing. — universeness
. I am sure you can do it to. — universeness
An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil. — universeness
And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify. — Benj96
An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. — Benj96
It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course. — Benj96
he universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people). — Benj96
We started a while ago.What would you like to start with? — Benj96
Supernatural has no existent. — universeness
So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes? — universeness
The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent — universeness
The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything — universeness
You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care — universeness
If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. — universeness
It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? — Benj96
How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any formt - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist. — Benj96
You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. — Benj96
Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line. — Benj96
I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. — Benj96
Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you — Benj96
Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person. — Benj96
So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS. — universeness
By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense. — universeness
How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent. — universeness
You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient. — universeness
But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc? — Benj96
Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof? — Benj96
Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help — Benj96
Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? — Benj96
To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful. — Benj96
Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic? — ssu
I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you? — universeness
There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? — universeness
Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes?What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? — Benj96
And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter. — Benj96
If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder. — Benj96
I don't follow your logic here, Perhaps you could reword it. The last sentence makes little sense.Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences. — Benj96
In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one.. — Benj96
You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. — Benj96
Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction. — Benj96
Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic? — ssu
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.