So, you want to have existed since forever...

kuroyume0161 said:
Methinks you mean in two respects (guess which one still fits!). :D
Click to expand...
No. I mean all three. Iacchus' ideas are really quite easy to understand, even if they are circular and illogical. He only has about two or three ideas which he clothes in various metaphors. Once you learn his language, you won't even need the secret decoder ring.
 
Tricky said:
No. I mean all three. Iacchus' ideas are really quite easy to understand, even if they are circular and illogical. He only has about two or three ideas which he clothes in various metaphors. Once you learn his language, you won't even need the secret decoder ring.
Click to expand...

True, but it doesn't change the fact that I've heard more cognizant arguments put forth from Rev. Stang.
 
Tricky said:
No. I mean all three. Iacchus' ideas are really quite easy to understand, even if they are circular and illogical. He only has about two or three ideas which he clothes in various metaphors. Once you learn his language, you won't even need the secret decoder ring.
Click to expand...
Pivotal points nonetheless. For example, how many points do you think exist between existence and non-existence? Which is to say, it either exists or it doesn't exist, correct?
 
Iacchus said:
Pivotal points nonetheless. For example, how many points do you think exist between existence and non-existence? Which is to say, it either exists or it doesn't exist, correct?
Click to expand...

So the truce, the old truce and nattonbuff the truce, boys. Drouth is stronger than faction. Slant. Shinshin. Shinshin.

ibid
 
kmortis said:
So the truce, the old truce and nattonbuff the truce, boys. Drouth is stronger than faction. Slant. Shinshin. Shinshin.

ibid
Click to expand...
It's strictly a matter digital logic which, of course is the basis for all logic. It either amounts to "1," meaning it does exist, or it amounts to "0," meaning it doesn't exist. This, in fact is the basis for all truth.
 
Iacchus said:
It's strictly a matter digital logic which, of course is the basis for all logic. It either amounts to "1," meaning it does exist, or it amounts to "0," meaning it doesn't exist. This, in fact is the basis for all truth.
Click to expand...

Let me finish! Just a little judas tonic, my ghem of all jokes, to make you go green in the gazer. Do you hear what I'm seeing, hammet? And remember that golden silence gives concent, Mr. Anklegazer!

...

That a cross may crush me, if I refuse to believe in it. That I may rock anchor through the ages if I hope it's not true. That the host may choke me if I beneighbor you without my charity! Sh! Shem, you are. Sh! You are mad!

ibid p193
 
Iacchus said:
It's strictly a matter digital logic which, of course is the basis for all logic. It either amounts to "1," meaning it does exist, or it amounts to "0," meaning it doesn't exist. This, in fact is the basis for all truth.
Click to expand...
Killing another living being is wrong.

Is that statement true (1) or false (0)?

Re: Joyce
Careful, Morty. You may make his tiny little brain explode.
 
Tricky said:
Killing another living being is wrong.

Is that statement true (1) or false (0)?

Re: Joyce
Careful, Morty. You may make his tiny little brain explode.
Click to expand...
That depends on who you ask. It is contingent, however, upon the truth of the circumstances.
 
Iacchus said:
That depends on who you ask.
Click to expand...

I'm asking you. You are the one who says this is the way things are. Is killing another living being is wrong? What is your true/false answer?
Iacchus said:
It is contingent, however, upon the truth of the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Sorry. No contingencies. It is true or it is false. This is your claim and those are the only choices you have presented.

Or are you perhaps admitting that your forced dichotomy may not be the best way of answering questions?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
That depends on who you ask. It is contingent, however, upon the truth of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

--Which was said by whem to whom?
--It wham. But whim I can't whumember.
--Fantasy! funtasy on fantasy, amnaes fintasies! And there is nihil nuder the clothing moon.

ibid pg 493
 
Iacchus said:
Derail! ... Derail!
Click to expand...

Hey, that's neat, Tricky, I think we broke the Iacchus. Does this mean that we can get the new upgrades to him?

Now, Iacchus, you want to answer Tricky's question? Is killing a living thing morally wrong? Yes or no. C'mon ya got a 50-50 chance.
 
kmortis said:
Hey, that's neat, Tricky, I think we broke the Iacchus. Does this mean that we can get the new upgrades to him?
Click to expand...
Well, counting this one, this is the 18th post since the derail (yours) of this thread.

Now, Iacchus, you want to answer Tricky's question? Is killing a living thing morally wrong? Yes or no. C'mon ya got a 50-50 chance.
Click to expand...
Only if Upchurch opts to split the thread. Otherwise you can try reposting it in the new thread.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, counting this one, this is the 18th post since the derail (yours) of this thread.

Only if Upchurch opts to split the thread. Otherwise you can try reposting it in the new thread.
Click to expand...


Nono, I figure that if you can go around spouting of complete gibberish, so can I. The fact that I have to rely on a dead Irish author to produce mine is just a testament to the gibberishness that you achieve.

Actually, I'm rather proud that my derail was so quickly spotted by you, as you are quite good at derailing threads as well. So, I take that as high praise from a derailer of your caliber.

So, ya wanna answer now?

Is killing a living creature morally wrong? Yes or no....
 
Tricky said:
No. I mean all three. Iacchus' ideas are really quite easy to understand, even if they are circular and illogical. He only has about two or three ideas which he clothes in various metaphors. Once you learn his language, you won't even need the secret decoder ring.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then. ;) I can see where you're going. The ideas are incessantly simplistic. But as for 'understanding' how these ideas have any relevancy to reality, well... :)

As to the part about 'Killing moral:Yes/No', Iacchus' head must be verging on explosion. How can there be a non-dichotomic answer to a question? The pain, the pain.
 
I tend to stay away from the 'Truth'. Only the facts, okay.

As for killing, it depends on the situation. No one said 'murder', just killing. Would it be justified (moral) to kill another living being if it were trying to kill/eat you? Would you object to medical treatments that 'kill' virii or bacterial infections so that you are not debilitated or expire? Do you feel guilty about your white blood cells doing so for minor illnesses? The area is so gray that the white and black of it are subatomic lines at the ends of a galactic expanse.
 
travel in time?

Upchurch said:
Well, I did define what were valid values of X. A god who doesn't travel in time is not a valid value.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this "travel in time" notion. The best I can make of it is that we only remember the past. An omniscient being would "remember" (know) the future equally as well as the past. If you're restricting the definition of God to a non-omniscient being than I think it's an uninteresting idea.

I should admit that my concept of time may differ from most as I conceive of it differently than I perceive it.

I really just consider time one of the spacetime dimentions.

Suppose I posit a two dimentional spacetime upon which a car travels. At the earliest time it is at spacetime position (0,0). It moves at a speed of 1, such that it also exists at position (1,1) as well as (2,2). Suppose that the car crashes at position (3,3). Then the car's existance is the set of points {(0,0),(1,1,),(2,2),(3,3)}. Time doesn't MOVE. It's merely a dimention. In fact movement in this construction is defined as when an object's spacetime shape is not parellel to the time axis for a given segment of the time axis. Time ITSELF no more moves than the x-axis.

Suppose now that instead of a car it's a person walking. At point (2,2) the person remembers being at position (0,0) and (1,1) but not (3,3). It's that PERCEPTION that causes the feeling of forward "time travel", but it's a perception.

In any event, my point was that an omniscient being would not have such a time traveling perception because it would know the complete set of points of existance.

Aaron
 
Upchurch said:
But if you only choose finite points, you'll never have something that existed forever because there is always another point beyond it. This misunderstanding of infinity is precisely the problem and why, logically, I'm saying nothing can have lasted forever, including time.
Click to expand...

The concept of infinity is quite tricky and intuition doesn't help a there.

Let me try to present my argument in slightly different form.

Let's suppose that there were only two possible time steps in existence and the complete time line was:
Code: 
___
0 1

Notice that even though there are two different time points, the longest possible duration there is '1'. If we now use the expression "two time steps before now", it is meaningless since we drop out of the time line if we try to go back two steps from either of the two time points.

Exactly the same thing happens if you have two-way infinite time line and you use the expression "infinite time steps before". Even though the line itself is infinite, every single point in it has a finite index for it. Your argument that it is impossible to get to "now" from "infinitely before now" fails because of this: the start point doesn't exists at all.

Maybe this infinity thing seems clearer if we look at natural numbers. By definition:
  • zero is a natural number;
  • if x is a natural number, then x + 1 is a natural number;
  • if x + 1 and y + 1 are natural numbers, then x = y; and
  • nothing else is a natural number.
The consequence of this definition is that there are an infinite number of different natural numbers. But the important thing to realize is that every single natural number is finite. Infinity is not a natural number because we can't reach it by repeatedly adding one to previous numbers. So concepts like "infinitely greater than" are meaningless when we are speaking about natural numbers. When we extend this definition to cover integers, we have the same thing: the absolute value of any integer is finite.

And finally, it is impossible to prove anything about the real world using pure logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom