Materialists......

[Belz...]

But as I explained, this answer can be arrived at by a process of elimination and nobody else has ever suggested a different way of answering the question.

No, you've asked meaningless questions and expect us to say "gee, darn! We can't answer those questions. Materialism is inadequate in this context." Except it isn't, because those are non-questions. Any answer would be wholly subjective, and wouldn't have any real meaning.

Both the theist explanation "It was God." and the materialist explanation "There is no explanation, the Universe just exists." are wholly inadequate.

Pray tell. What answer would YOU like ? And why do you expect the universe to confirm to this wish ?

You think I wouldn't want more ? The universe is fascinating, true. But it's rather dull, sometimes. Also, I'd like to live forever. So you can be that some of science's answers are inadequate to me. But it doesn't change the facts.

And when you have a situation where you have only one concievable way of answering a question, then other people nitpicking at it without taking any notice of the fact that there's no other way of answering the question doesn't make much difference to me. If somebody actually came up with a better suggestion or actually took any notice of the inadequacies of the other answers, I'd take rather more notice of them.

Oh, please. Get over yourself. Are we having a discussion, here ??

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Are we having a discussion, here ??

Nope, you're going on my ignore list.

 

[hammegk]

Subjective and Objective live with each other.

Do they?

It's not an answer I find necessarily, immediately, obvious, but maybe it's just me.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope, you're going on my ignore list.

Why?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's not an answer I find necessarily, immediately, obvious, but maybe it's just me.

Uh, if the two didn't live with each other, then one of them wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Perhaps you're suggesting that they live in separate counties.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Say, isn't the arccos(1) = 0? I feel a new metaphysic coming on ...

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Uh, if the two didn't live with each other, then one of them wouldn't exist ....
~~ Paul

As often seems to be the case: "So near, and yet so far ...."

 

[Tricky]

Do they?

It's not an answer I find necessarily, immediately, obvious, but maybe it's just me.

Isn't it? To me it seems every bit as obvious as "Being and non-being create each other."

 

[hammegk]

Oh? The "create" may be the problem I have for 'being creating non-being'.

I suggest you may have as much trouble finding objectivity as you do 'non-being'. Hmmm. Does subjectivity "create" objectivity? If so, where is it?

 

[Tricky]

Oh? The "create" may be the problem I have for 'being creating non-being'.

I can see why that might be a problem. How can you create something that doesn't exist?

I suggest you may have as much trouble finding objectivity as you do 'non-being'.

Well, I do have a bit of trouble finding "non-being". Could you describe it for me so I'll be able to find it better if I stumble across some?

But of course, no one person can be completely objective. In fact, I would argue that perfect objectivity requires omniscience. We can only be "more objective" or "less objective".

Hmmm. Does subjectivity "create" objectivity?

You could say that. Greater objectivity is gained by examining and evaluating numerous subjective (or less objective) viewpoints.

If so, where is it?

It is in greater knowledge.

 

[hammegk]

I didn't foresee our conversation lasting, but had hoped for a bit better than that.

 

[Tricky]

I didn't foresee our conversation lasting, but had hoped for a bit better than that.

Well I can't carry the whole thing by myself.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why?

~~ Paul

Because the signal-to-noise ratio has reached the point where I can no longer be bothered to search through the noise to find the signal.

 

[Tricky]

Because the signal-to-noise ratio has reached the point where I can no longer be bothered to search through the noise to find the signal.

The greatest noise I have seen here is all the mathematical hogwash, yet that doesn't seem to have tripped your noise sensor.

However, announcing that you are putting someone on ignore is a hostile move. It is easy to "manually" ignore someone (just skip over their posts). It is easy to put someone on ignore without an announcement. To announce it on the forums can only be construed as an insult which means "you are not worth considering". If you behave in such a hostile manner, you must not be surprised when that animosity is returned by others.

As long as you are cool with that, fine, but let us not hear any complaints about how you are misunderstood. You are painting a very clear picture of yourself.

Myself, I like flames. Anybody can flame me and I will respond in kind or just laugh. But if you are thin-skinned, then it is unwise to pick fights by deliberately insulting people.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The greatest noise I have seen here is all the mathematical hogwash, yet that doesn't seem to have tripped your noise sensor.

However, announcing that you are putting someone on ignore is a hostile move. It is easy to "manually" ignore someone (just skip over their posts). It is easy to put someone on ignore without an announcement. To announce it on the forums can only be construed as an insult which means "you are not worth considering".

If you behave in such a hostile manner, you must not be surprised when that animosity is returned by others.

Except I only ignore people who I consider are being systematically hostile towards me, tricky. Yes, putting someone on ignore is equivalent to saying "your posts aren't threatening enough for me to worry about ignoring them". There's a good way for people to avoid this happening, even if I don't like/agree with them - they have to make sure that what they are posting is relevant and interesting enough to provoke a substantial response. Belz failed to do this. Instead, it was turning into the opening moments of a pub brawl.

As long as you are cool with that, fine, but let us not hear any complaints about how you are misunderstood. You are painting a very clear picture of yourself.

Whatever you say, Tricky. I will live my life according to whatever rules I like. People will make their own minds up about me and why I do what I do. They do not need you psychological analysis of me.

But if you are thin-skinned, then it is unwise to pick fights by deliberately insulting people.

I am not thin-skinned. I am simply trying to avoid the people who flame before they get to the point where I am bothered by it. You can tell when someone is going that way by the steady replacement of sensible comments with non-comments like "Ugh! Metaphyscis" or "Why should you expect the world to conform to your wishes?". This stuff is content-free. It's irrelevant. Hence, I ignore it.

Have you stopped beating your wife, Tricky?

 

[Belz...]

Nope, you're going on my ignore list.

Now THIS is what I like about the JREF. Intelligent folks who can discuss issues intelligently without resorting to insults and outburts of anger and who can resolve their differences by adapting their opinions to evidence.

Of course, I wasn't talking about you.

 

[Belz...]

However, announcing that you are putting someone on ignore is a hostile move. It is easy to "manually" ignore someone (just skip over their posts). It is easy to put someone on ignore without an announcement. To announce it on the forums can only be construed as an insult which means "you are not worth considering".

Well, at least now I won't bother answering him, thinking he'll read anything I say.

Unfortunately now it means Geoff is one step closer to completing his impregnable tower.

 

[Tricky]

Except I only ignore people who I consider are being systematically hostile towards me, tricky. Yes, putting someone on ignore is equivalent to saying "your posts aren't threatening enough for me to worry about ignoring them". There's a good way for people to avoid this happening, even if I don't like/agree with them - they have to make sure that what they are posting is relevant and interesting enough to provoke a substantial response. Belz failed to do this. Instead, it was turning into the opening moments of a pub brawl.

That wasn't my impression. Certainly people do post with passion here, but I thought there was substance to the things he said. (And no, I don't care to rehash them.)

Whatever you say, Tricky. I will live my life according to whatever rules I like. People will make their own minds up about me and why I do what I do. They do not need you psychological analysis of me.

I just recall that widespread animosity drove your from these boards at least once. I wouldn't think you would want that again.

I am not thin-skinned. I am simply trying to avoid the people who flame before they get to the point where I am bothered by it. You can tell when someone is going that way by the steady replacement of sensible comments with non-comments like "Ugh! Metaphyscis" or "Why should you expect the world to conform to your wishes?". This stuff is content-free. It's irrelevant. Hence, I ignore it.

Again, that wasn't my impression of Belz's posts. But there are a number of people here who find metaphysics devoid of meaning or utility (on a skeptic board. Go figure. ) That doesn't mean they don't have valid comments.

Have you stopped beating your wife, Tricky?

No. But there is more to life than Scrabble™

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I just recall that widespread animosity drove your from these boards at least once. I wouldn't think you would want that again.

I'm not stupid, Tricky. If I went to a creationist board and launched a sustained challenge to the foundations of their belief system I suspect the result would be "widespread animosity". Why should I expect anything different if I come here and challenge the foundations of materialistic scientism? Yes, there are plenty of people on this board for whom nothing I say will make the slightest bit of difference apart from creating differing levels of animosity towards me. But there are also plenty of others for which the same cannot be said. I don't care if half the people on this site end up on my ignore list, providing I am still meaningfully communicating with the half that don't.

 

[DreadNiK]

Except I only ignore people who I consider are being systematically hostile towards me, tricky. Yes, putting someone on ignore is equivalent to saying "your posts aren't threatening enough for me to worry about ignoring them". There's a good way for people to avoid this happening, even if I don't like/agree with them - they have to make sure that what they are posting is relevant and interesting enough to provoke a substantial response. Belz failed to do this. Instead, it was turning into the opening moments of a pub brawl.



Whatever you say, Tricky. I will live my life according to whatever rules I like. People will make their own minds up about me and why I do what I do. They do not need you psychological analysis of me.



I am not thin-skinned. I am simply trying to avoid the people who flame before they get to the point where I am bothered by it. You can tell when someone is going that way by the steady replacement of sensible comments with non-comments like "Ugh! Metaphyscis" or "Why should you expect the world to conform to your wishes?". This stuff is content-free. It's irrelevant. Hence, I ignore it.

Have you stopped beating your wife, Tricky?

K-PAX reference?