GENIUS FORUMS

David: You want me to prove that a thing cannot exist without its component parts? earnest: Well you were the one who implied that you could, when you wrote above (now snipped): "True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truth...

I'm going to try to summarise the views of the significant participants in this thread: Oh, how rude of me - I forgot Leyla. Here it is again with Leyla included: David Quinn: God is everything, but He's not conscious. Iolaus: God is everything, and He's conscious. Dan: God is possible, but insigni...

Oh, Carl, I always knew you were a softie at heart.

Dan: The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick. earnest: Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity. Dan: Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.[/quote] It wasn't an evasion. David said that form could be either internal or ex...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanway, who am I kidding? Every regular knows who I am already. Go ahead and say it, brokenhead.

"La - um"? Is that a new and funky mantra? Dang, I haven't been keeping up with the Joneses! Maybe I'm backwards in reciting the "Hare Rama" mantra! I really haven't kept up.

Dan Rowden wrote:To be very clear: in my case the God in question is specifically the God of your scenario.

Thanks, Dan. That actually means a lot to me. It implies that you consider that my conception of God is free of contradictions, which is my main aim after criticising the Christian conception of God.

earnest: ...desire is an attractive force which exists regardless of whether one possesses or lacks of the subject of the desire.

brokenhead: I agree with this. And can in kinder, gentler moments be called "love."

Lovely! We're on the same wavelength.

The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick. Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity. Rationality is cast aside when people believe things for purely emotional reasons, thereby truth as well - or more accurately put - the valuing of it. Prove that the belief is no...

I'm going to try to summarise the views of the significant participants in this thread: David Quinn: God is everything, but He's not conscious. Iolaus: God is everything, and He's conscious. Dan: God is possible, but insignificant. brokenhead: God is real, but don't talk to me about religion! Atarax...

Dan, wouldn't it be more reasonable for you to ask, "Why do we drain you?" And Amanda, yes, I did miss you. I haven't been posting, but I've been reading, and although I think that you're a bit overblown in your claims at times, I appreciate the generosity of your spirit. You're pleasant t...

I'm deliberately pushing him hard for two reasons. The most important one being that he needs to see there are things he's unwilling to concede for emotional, rather than logical reasons. Dan, I've been pondering this for a while now, particularly since brokenhead conceded that you were right. I wa...

Given the truth that a thing cannot possibly exist without its component parts, it becomes logically true that all things cannot exist without their component parts. This is a truth which doesn't require empirical observation to confirm or deny. It is something which can only be affirmed logically....

Anna, earnest: Well, you believe that God is wise without a process, and that His wisdom is worth having, right? There's your precedent for non-magical inherent wisdom right there. Iolaus: I have no idea about that. You have no idea about what? That God is wise without a process? Or that it's a prec...

True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation. I trust you see the difference. Perhaps you could elaborate using the example that I started out with: tha...

True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation. I trust you see the difference. Perhaps you could elaborate using the example that I started out with: tha...

Hey Anna, Earnest, your reply reminds me of an argument I had with my niece when she was a girl. I bet that I'm not quite as cute and endearing as your niece though. When you admit that you don't know the substance of your soul, how do you then insist that it is possible for it to be created wise wi...

What are the things being weighed in your pleasure/pain calculation, and how would you define them? The things that I'm weighing are: * On the pain side: frustration when you don't get what you want. * On the pleasure side: not only the obvious - the physical pleasure of sex - but also the slightly...

Leyla, you seem to be going out of your way to attack practically everything that I write, and not only that, but to attack me personally. What is your objective?

Trevor, my perspective is that in favourable conditions, the amount of suffering produced by attachment to sex is minimal when compared with the great pleasure that it provides. I'd be interested to know Dan's reaction to that perspective.

earnest: Believe it or not but I was right, and he actually was drunk. I won't embarrass Dan by linking to the proof. Leyla: So fucking wh-a-a-a-a-t!? So your implied doubt was unjustified, that's what. That has no bearing on the point being made, aside from you emotional/moralistic reaction (to wh...

Hi Trevor, You're right, I should give Dan the benefit of the doubt. Here's the exchange that I based my understanding of Dan's claim on. It seems pretty unambiguous to me. Dan seems to be saying that attachment to sex universally leads to misery, although he did allow a lot of scope for what misery...

Ryan, Just so I'm clear, can you let me know whether you recognise a significant difference between each of the following pairs of statements? 1. "Your ideas are very confused" vs "You are very confused" 2. "What you say generally makes no sense whatsoever" vs "You...

Just for the record, I want to retract a previous argument that I made: Ryan said that on GF we are supposed to be attacking "the contents of each other's minds" - how is this significantly different to what Sher said: "that the purpose of GF is to attack people"? The contents of...

That's why if follows, Dan, that you must be drunk. Believe it or not but I was right, and he actually was drunk. I won't embarrass Dan by linking to the proof. Much to my chagrin, I have to concede this one to Dan. A synonym for "want" is the word "lack." I see your point, but ...