Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 64 (25096)
11-30-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John
11-30-2002 9:15 PM


quote:
quote:
that doesn't follow from anything i wrote and *that's* what i thought you were saying.
BS.
insightful...
quote:
quote:
what's disgusting is your continued fear of an open and honest, moderated, debate.
Talk about non-sequiturs!!!! LOL..... It is also a red herring and, well, just a cheap shot.
my apologies, wasn't meant to be cheap... merely true

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John, posted 11-30-2002 9:15 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:15 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 64 (25100)
11-30-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by forgiven
11-30-2002 9:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
insightful...
Yup.
quote:
my apologies, wasn't meant to be cheap... merely true
So this is how it is then? Back you into a corner and you come out screaming foul play.
Very mature...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 9:37 PM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 64 (25109)
12-01-2002 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by forgiven
11-28-2002 8:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
as for a) you seem to be saying that if the definition of universe is as i stated earlier, "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated," then including "I" in it begs the question... but is that true? john objected to the definition, but by his failure to offer his own his objection is merely a groundless assertion...
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how... so unless you mean to say it begs the question because the definition of universe isn't as i offered, you seem to be equivicating on the terms
as for b), it assumes transcendental entities aren't themselves included in "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"... but on what grounds is this assertion made? it appears that for a transcendental entity to fall outside the definition it needs to be defined as "supernatural"... if that's how you want it defined, i'll do that... and in that case, you'd be correct *if* "I" am in fact transcendental

Yes it begs the question because if you didn`t exsist you wouldn`t be asking the question in the first place would you....
Also it only proves the special case where "I = universe" the exsistence of anything else is completely unverified....
quote:
"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated,"
Seems to me this is a 2 edged sword, afterall I can postulate transcosmic magenta gerbils, they don`t exsist and they are by your definition part of the universe thus the universe (as defined by you) doesn`t either....
So it looks like we have to do away with the postulated part leaving "the whole body of things and phenomena observed" which means that unless we observe these transcendental buggers they are not included in the definition of universe....
Seen any lately?
So now the big question is how do you know that you aren`t one of these supernatural transcendtal buggers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 8:13 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by forgiven, posted 12-01-2002 8:26 AM joz has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 64 (25123)
12-01-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by joz
12-01-2002 3:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated,"
Seems to me this is a 2 edged sword, afterall I can postulate transcosmic magenta gerbils, they don`t exsist and they are by your definition part of the universe thus the universe (as defined by you) doesn`t either....
So it looks like we have to do away with the postulated part leaving "the whole body of things and phenomena observed" which means that unless we observe these transcendental buggers they are not included in the definition of universe....
Seen any lately?
no, not since the late 60s/early 70s... concerning magenta gerbils, your point is taken, the objection noteworthy
quote:
So now the big question is how do you know that you aren`t one of these supernatural transcendtal buggers?
ok, it's a fair question... and i need at least another cup of coffee before i can even think clearly on it... but for now i think it has something to do with me not being eternal, iow "i" haven't always existed...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 3:02 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024