Considering geological time Does it really matter what humans do

[Jack]

S[PINOZAS WAGER - as a betting man you have nothing to losse in beliveing in god but a hell of of alot if it exists

Do you mean Pascal's wager? You don't even want to introduce that in this forum. You may want to search for previous comments on the value of Pascal's wager.

[pam699]

but please u r a logical man so please answers this

what is wrong with this logic and conclusion

it would seem ironically deans logic is fawless
now follow me closley
this is where deans ideas come in
as a philosopher you are all useing logic to arrive at this view characterised by isherwood
but as dean has argued all this logic does is make all your logical views end in meaninglessness
so if everything is meaninglessness then no view is episytemologicaly more valiid that anyt other so the beiffe in god is just as valid as the belief that we ar unloved and unimportant
so why not just belive in god- HEY CAN YOU SEE WE END UP WITH S[PINOZAS WAGER - as a betting man you have nothing to losse in beliveing in god but a hell of of alot if it exis



also if u where a christian u could see the tree of knowldeg myth as showing how the devil wanted humanity to get logic so it would take them further from god
isherwoods argument would indicate the devil has got it wish -man feeling alone in a godless universe where meaning is given from mammon what more could the devil want more

[Jack]

what is wrong with this logic and conclusion it would seem ironically deans logic is fawless

Logically, nothing produced by imperfect humans could ever be flawless. So ironically your premise is flawed. You haven't shown your conclusion to be valid, you've simply claimed that it is.

but as dean has argued all this logic does is make all your logical views end in meaninglessness

How does logic make logic meaningless? He can argue it all he wants. He hasn't shown it to be so. And my experience tells me he's wrong.

No one ever said that Christian mythology doesn't have its basis covered. Of course it has an explanation involving gods and devils and making all the bad things the fault of the least of their mythological beings-the humans. I used to believe all that. No longer.

[pam699]

but hypothetically speacking if dean is correct and no view is epistemogically better than any other then pascal wagers makes sence
i mean dean has shown time and time again that al views ends in meaninglessness ie maths -and u gave supporting evidence
so if logicall your view about a godless loveless world is no beter logicaly from a god loving univesre why do you still hold your view-it seems it has nothing to do with logic at all u only hide behind logic to give justification for your view but your view come from some other place -pehaps just raw irrational emotion u r trying to make rational via your logic cover

[Jack]

pehaps just raw irrational emotion u r trying to make rational via your logic cover

You can accuse me of being either emotional or logical, but both at once? I'm not sure how I pulled that one off, but...cool.
If you insist: let's play with the first flaw in Pascal's wager. Which god of all the possible gods should we believe in so as to avoid that particular god's pet peeves? The Christian god, a Norse god, the god-is-everything god?

[pam699]

isherwood i will show you how your views end in meaningless or self-contradiction
yoo say deans cliam that all is meaningless is false thus u are arguing some views have meaning

but u then say
quote
As far as we can support with scientific evidence, there's no reason for anything.

which makes u a nihlist and if there is no reason for anything that encludes meaning
so your contradiction is you say deans meaningless is wrong yet u go onto say there is no reason for anthing makeing u a nihlist leading to there is no meaning

also
u say
Logically, nothing produced by imperfect humans could ever be flawless

well logic is produced by imperfect human so it must be flawed - as dean says
so if it is flawed why do you hold your logically arrived at views when on the other hand u admitt they are flawed-thus agreeing with dean -who you logically say is wrong with your flawed logic

[Jack]

well logic is produced by imperfect human so it must be flawed

Of course it is. I just said that.

why do you hold your logically arrived at views when on the other hand u admitt they are flawed

Because I have no urge to be completely illogical. That's the only alternative.

thus agreeing with dean

Thus disagreeing with his majesty. If he's a true nihilist, he lacks balance. Life is too vast and complicated, it operates on too many levels, to be appreciated from a single viewpoint. Absolute nihilism is self-defeating. Its claims sound ridiculous to me because they are the claims of extremists. I'd go insane if I could only view reality through such a narrow slit. Nihilism works in certain contexts, but fails miserably to provide a balanced platform on which to rest one's entire outlook on life.

[pam699]

HEY u say u r not a nihilist but
quote
but u then say
quote
As far as we can support with scientific evidence, there's no reason for anything.

which makes u a nihlist and if there is no reason for anything that encludes meaning
so your contradiction is you say deans meaningless is wrong yet u go onto say there is no reason for anthing makeing u a nihlist leading to there is no meaning

u say quote
Because I have no urge to be completely illogical
but if logic is flaewd u cant help being ilogical

dean is not a nihilist he say every view including nihlism ends in meaninglessness

[Jack]

dean is not a nihilist he say every view including nihlism ends in meaninglessness

So I suppose he'd be unable to explain the meaning of that sentence, wouldn't he? Even his interest in the topic is meaningless. Dean is meaningless.

Now that we got that out of the way, I'll repeat that viewing life through the blinders of any single view (opinion, belief...) results in a very shallow life. Why settle for a shallow life if a broader view of reality is available? Why just be one way or the other? I prefer a life of balance.

[pam699]

quote
Why just be one way or the other? I prefer a life of balance.
as i said in the intelligence post
this view is logicaly invalide because it violates the law of the excluded middle and law of non-contraddition-these are your epistemological laws frm your logic
you logic says it must be one or the other not a conicidenta appositorum

[Jack]

this view is logicaly invalide because it violates the law of the excluded middle and law of non-contraddition-these are your epistemological laws frm your logic you logic says it must be one or the other not a conicidenta appositorum

Please cite the substance and origin of those laws and explain your terms. I have reason to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll help:

Whether a system of logic satisfies the law of excluded middle depends on details of the logic such as the behavior of disjunction and negation, the set of truth values, and whether there are truth value gaps (that is, whether the valuation function is total or partial). Examples of logical systems that contradict this idea include ternary logic, in which statements may be true, false, or unknown; fuzzy logic, in which statements may be true, false, or somewhere in between; and intuitionistic logic, in which the notion of truth is dispensed with entirely, and provability considered in its place.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pam699]

hey u r using aristotelian or normal logic in your arguments not fuzzy or some other esoteric system so stop trying to avoid your shot in the foot by being pendantic and showing your urdition where it irrelevent and trying to avoid your violatation of the exculded middle which normal logic uses adhear to
i can just see u in a court room contradicting yourself in testimony beacus e u violtaed the law of excluded middle and say ohhhhhhhhhhhh judge what logic are u useing i am talking in fuzzy logic -i dont think u will get to far and avoid the consequence of your violtation of normal logic

[Jack]

showing your urdition

I've never shown you my urdition. That's only for my friends to see.

[pam699]

hahahahaahah very good least we can have fun

[Yasa]

Quote by: pam699 now follow me closley this is where deans ideas come in as a philosopher you are all useing logic to arrive at this view characterised by isherwood but as dean has argued all this logic does is make all your logical views end in meaninglessness so if everything is meaninglessness then no view is episytemologicaly more valiid that anyt other so the beiffe in god is just as valid as the belief that we ar unloved and unimportant so why not just belive in god- HEY CAN YOU SEE WE END UP WITH S[PINOZAS WAGER - as a betting man you have nothing to losse in beliveing in god but a hell of of alot if it exists

How did dean come to these conclusions? Using logic, perhaps?

Quote by: pam699 now follow me closley

It's kinda hard with the way your posts are poorly written.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Isherwood Now, if you enjoy bathing in the awareness that nothing ever truly matters at all, you are most likely depressed, manic, mystical or nihilistic.

hahaha! I love it, and it's so true.

[pam699]

yes dean did come to these conclusions useing logic and he would be the first to say therefore his views will end in meaninglessness -just like everyone elses

[Hmm]

Quote by: pam699 hey as a side issue to this if it does not matter what humans do becuase we will ixstinct and a smuj in the stara and the universe dont care about us then all we have in the universe is our self alone and not loved thus humanty could pull together rathar than f..king things destroying everything killing everything if nothing loves us in the universe and we will one day just vaniosh from it forgotten and not missed we could well say love our own species but in another post it is cliamed we cant do this anyway because we are a dumb ass species

Why do you create so many pointless threads? Of course humanity could "destroy and kill" just about everything on the Earth. Would that be beneficial to our offspring? Of course not. Would you rather live in harmony with the world or in constant war?

[pam699]

quote
Why do you create so many pointless threads? Of course humanity could "destroy and kill" just about everything on the Earth
but what does it matter if we do
in a billion years from now we will be extinct so will most of the life forms now
the earth will have changed
so Considering geological time Does it really matter what humans do

[Matt W]

Of course it matters. The point is, is that it matters to us. No-one else matters. Attempting to grasp the sheer conept of geological time is a no-brainer, so why even attempt to do so? It's all about living in the now. If Dean is so detached from reality as to avoid doing that, then I pity him. And that matters.