Perhaps we might agree to give the issue due consideration?

I think we might agree that in this case a moment's consideration is due consideration, if not rather more than is due. Whereof one cannot eat, thereof one must remain un-sated.

It's non sequitur that a Great Goat must exist.

It's non sequitur that if A eats B, then B cannot eat A, for example, partially eaten B can still kill A, and also, B can just kill A before A is even aware that it's under attack.

It's arbitrary that goats eat everything. In fact they don't in reality eat everything.

It's counter-intuitive that an hypothetical Great Goat would devour itself, when it could devour something else, it's a Great Goat after all.

There haven't been any other goat threads that l know of.

Other than that, you seem a bit confused,

We know that goats eat everything. This is undeniable. — Banno

My friend has both goats and sheep, never has a sheep been eaten by a goat. First premise wrong.

If A eats B, B cannot eat A; a moment's reflection will show this must be true. — Banno

If B has been eaten already this is true, but if B eats A first then it is not.

SO it follows that either there is an indefinite gastronomic chain, such that goat 1 is eaten by goat 2, which in turn is eaten by goat 3, and hence that there is never a goat that is not eaten by some other goat; — Banno

Actually it does not follow, there could quite easily be a case where one goat is more interested in eating your underpants and has no interest in other goats. Or several goats eating other goats at the same time which would make it a multi-thread gastronomic chain instead of an indefinite gastronomic chain.

or there is one goat that eats every goat; the Great Goat. — Banno

Either goats would have to reproduce like rabbits before being eaten or the Great Goat would soon go hungry and become non-existent.

But since goats eat everything, there is something that eats the Great Goat. — Banno

Already dismissed as a fallacy.

The traditional answer is of course that the Great Goat eats itself. The self-inflicted suffering of the Great Goat gives meaning to our own suffering. — Banno

OH NO! That would start another thread on infinite eternity. Please don't do that.

Now I hope that this short commentary helps divest you of any gnawing doubts. One hopes it will put an end to the mental mastication hereabouts, but that may be too much to imbibe. — Banno

Now I hope that this reply to your short commentary helps divest you of any chewing (excuse the pun) doubts. One hopes it will put an end to the mental masturbation hereabouts, but that may be too much to imbibe.

But all is not lost, there is still hope for the Great Goat.
A benevolent Great Goat would not want his followers to suffer, so at the end of their non cannibalistic lives he invites then to the Great Pasture in the sky. And then eats them.

There haven't been any other goat threads that l know of.

Other than that, you seem a bit confused, — BaldMenFighting

So you don't know Banno.

That's your hard luck.

My friend has both goats and sheep, never has a sheep been eaten by a goat. First premise wrong. — Sir2u

That some particular sheep has not yet been eaten by a goat. But it does not follow that it will not be eaten by a goat at some later stage.

Indeed, most of the criticisms here have been to the effect it is not the case that goats eat everything. That this thought could be entertained by otherwise intelligent folk shows us clearly the failings of what passes for education on our times. That this very core principle of civilised life could be treated so is an abomination.

There haven't been any other goat threads that l know of. — BaldMenFighting

I rest my case.

Indeed, most of the criticisms here have been to the effect it is not the case that goats eat everything. — Banno

As is the case of a god knowing everything, facts that cannot be proven are not facts. Show show your evidence.

Evidence? Doubt makes no sense here. This is not a question that is liable to the vagaries of justification.

That is, your doubt tells us nothing about goats, but much about you.

Evidence? Doubt makes no sense here. This is not a question that is liable to the vagaries of justification.

That is, your doubt tells us nothing about goats, but much about you. — Banno

Oh, now I see the light. Of course all i need is faith, the rest will follow.

I am convinced, I have become a believer.

Hail the Great Goat.

Do you think he would mind if we called him GG from now on, The Great Goat is just so over whelming.

See this, for example:

In order to believe in unconsumed objects, one does not have to accept that this objects are not contingent on the Great Goat. One could simply believe that are necessarily existing and sustained through the forthcoming consumption by some goat. This can be through some non-voluntary facet of the Great Goat's existence through which he does this. There are certain problems which may arise, but this seems to be a far more plausible view than to simply deny the existence of unconsumed objects. Thus, if there is something I’m overlooking I would love to hear it, but it seems far fetched that the baggage with a Leibnizian view of unconsumed objects could be more concerning than that with fictionalism. — FordFestivaPhilosophy

This is Dreadful. Everything is consumed by some goat; It is this immanent consumption that is the source of the manifestation of that which is consumed.

Things only exist in order to be eaten by a goat.

There are more suitable epithets. The Bearded One; The Great Masticator; Swallower of All.

Goats eat anything, not everything.

Where did goats come from? Isn't that the fundamental question, regardless of the failed attempts to answer it?

Where did goats come from? Isn't that the fundamental question, regardless of the failed attempts to answer it? — Hanover

The Great Goat is, and always has been. He is timeless and exist everywhere at all times.

Have a little faith and just believe.

Well said, my brother from an udder mother.

:up: :point: :pray:

:rofl:

I love this thread so much but alas all that begins must come to be eaten by a goat. (not if I can do anything about it by refreshing this page with this comment so more people can see it)

The Great Goat is, and always has been. He is timeless and exist everywhere at all times.

Have a little faith and just believe. — Sir2u

But this misses the point. Even if I have no faith at all in the eternal and ubiquitous existence of the Great Goat, my question of his origin still remains.

But this misses the point. — Hanover

Indeed.

But this misses the point. Even if I have no faith at all in the eternal and ubiquitous existence of the Great Goat, my question of his origin still remains. — Hanover

No, it clearly addressed your question. Being everything he is the origin, the end and everything in the middle. There was nothing before him and naught will there be after him because he is all there is.

Indeed; everything is a goat.

I'm actually interested in philosophy of religion. And it's interesting that there is a foment of threads about spiritual and metaphysical issues on this forum at this time. Yes, many of the comments are pretty random and idiosyncratic, but not all of them. I see the task as trying to map the ideas against history, religion and philosophy, but also to consider what lies beyond all of them as they are currently conceived. But going beyond them requires understanding them at least to some degree, and there's a general lack of it in the so-called 'plain language' and analytical philosophy that Banno seems to favour. Maybe this forum will become overwhelmed by these threads and it will be time to move on. But resorting to ridicule is not going to help.

There is a pattern to the grammar of some religious thought that runs parallel to Goatism.

So for example one of the aspects of Capra's original paper that I find revealing is the way in which it starts half way through an argument, assuming familiarity with other Goatist materials.

I also read his article as a critique of my own views, borrowed from Wittgenstein, that there are truths that it makes no sense to doubt. I've played on that in some of the posts in this thread. The undeniable precept that goats eat everything parallels Moore's "here are two hands".

Goatism ridicules the ridiculous; and this is not such a bad thing to do. But in so doing it keeps an eye on the ridiculous in my own ideas, and the ideas of others.

Once one has embraced goatism, any intuitions rooted in a previous non-goatist paradigm can be rejected as unreliable.

David Stove would be chuckling in his grave. Metaphorically, of course.

I would like to argue for the existence of some “step” after one’s life on Earth and before Heaven/ Hell in which all human beings have the opportunity to choose Jesus as their Lord. If there is a chance to choose God after death, then salvation is not evil and God in fact it is maximally good, just, and merciful (because eternal communion with God is offered to all who may choose it!) This maintains human free will and the choice to love God (it is not compulsory) while still allowing those who seek goodness in this world to find the omnibenevolent God, regardless of their knowledge of Him in the physical, temporal world. Without this step, I don’t see a way to reconcile the unequal access to God on this Earth with eternal damnation. If that were the case, it seems that salvation is tinged with evil in a way humans cannot defend without appealing to “God’s plan being too wonderful to understand.” — tenderfoot

Here's a fine example from the Followers of the Son showing how a rejection of suffering leads to irrationality. Since the Great Goat eats itself, suffering is built into the vary nature of the world. Tenderfoot's ad hoc fabrication of a New Limbo shows clearly his self-demeaning refusal to accept Goatism.

Something else about goats that I just found out, they like human piss.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/goats-airlifted-national-park-developing-thirst-human-urine-084218375.html

if plain language is so lacking why not show us exactly which part of great Banno's teachings is flawed in as many words as you like. I do agree this post isn't gonna resolve any issues, but neither did any of the ones I read that are supposedly more in depth. You're welcome to have an in depth discussion here instead of accusing the guy's logic of being too blunt

Well I agree with Banno there’s a fair amount of goatism on this board right now but you have to realise, goats will eat almost anything.

yes indeed brother. Now what's wrong with goatism as you've claimed you would show earlier?