Pidzilla
Yup! Everything I write here is my own fabrication.
No. A logical chain is not your own fabrication. But saying that one thing implies another without any bridge is indeed a fabrication. That's what I'm saying.
Why not? Because YOU say so? Just because I didn't read it in some book doesn't mean it's a worse theory than any other.
What're you talking about? I didn't read this in a book. Here's why not: because, logically, that's the way it is. You said it was a paradox; I'm saying there IS NONE.
Let's go back to what you said:
"But after having discovered (or invented or what the hell ever) these things the human being says: "Hey, this is too good to be natural! It has to be supernatural or a work of the Gods!". So the human being start using its intelligence to prove its lack of intelligence, and that is the paradox."
What I said before (and am saying again now) is that you're making an assumption: that saying "this is evidence of God" is somehow "proving its lack of intelligence." How do you get to that point? I realize you can't possibly be saying what you are saying, so, accordingly, I'm asking you what you actually meant.
But acknowledging a Higher Power to me isn't the same as believing in God.
Eh?
How do you define "God"? It's generally used to describe a Higher Power. Occasionally it's used to describe a Higher Power with some kind of Will. How do you use it?
My point is that this discussion is discussed for the sake of the discussion. Do you honestly think that you can convert any atheists by stating that math is the proof of God's existence? I don't think you believe you can. You're just upset because I'm telling you this discussion is totally fruitless.
I'm not upset at all. THAT would be fruitless.
No, I dont' think I can convert anyone. Since when is that the only possible benefit of arguing, man?
Come on, Yoda! Admit that you do it for the fun of it!
I don't do it for the fun of it. If you want to know why I argue, I can tell you. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making all these assumptions, though.
The Great Relearning? Is that some kind of republican education program? Back to "the roots"? "The Good Old Days"?
Now THAT is BS.
Geez, ANOTHER baseless assumption.
The Great Learning is a lot of things. But what do you care? Clearly you've already decided not only what it is, but that you don't like it, too.
See above: that's merely a semantic change that doesn't address the question. It's the same thing under a different name. It's akin to saying "God didn't create us...aliens did!" The question is the same: okay, if we came from aliens, where did the aliens come from?
If the Law of Mathematics is just one of the Laws of the Universe, how exactly does that explain anything about it? All it does is place it in an arbitrary group/naming system.
You have serious problems with taking critic, Yoda. You are constantly telling everybody here "how it is!". And since I don't agree with you I'm just say "No, it's not!". I think I'm explaining my view of the universe fine by pointing out the irrelevance (the way I see it) of your arguments and so called evidences. You think a lot of what your opponents arguments, especially mine, are BS. Well, the feelings are mutual.
I disagree with many, many, many people. As many as I agree with, easily. And you know what? The bulk of them have no problem with me. We don't see eye to eye, but we treat each other with respect.
Let me ask you this: if I have a problem taking criticism, why haven't I once insulted anyone? Why have you used stronger language than I have? Why haven't I made any personal attacks in the vein that you have? And
I'm the one who can't take criticism? I implore you to step back and look at the way I've talked to you, and the way you've talked to me.
Your opinions of me are only a reflection of your courtesy towards me. I never said your arguments were BS; it's you that started using harsher language like that. Again...an assumption. I think we both know there's a difference between saying "I think you're mistaken" and "your argument is BS."
You need order and answers to everything. If I thought there was a chance in hell to prove God's existence or non-existence by theories about the origin of mathematics I would participate in THAT discussion. Since I don't find any valid evidence in your argumentation about God's existence I chose to criticize the discussion as a whole. I'm sorry you can't take that.
With all due respect, that's just very rude. I can take it just fine. I've taken tons of abuse. I've been called everything under the sun for merely disagreeing with others. I've been insulted and even threatened for respectful disagreement. I can take it as much as anyone you'll talk to on here, P.
Statements like "you need order and answers to everything" are just out of line. They attempt to explain what kind of person I am through simple arguments like this. They also express a dismissive "I know your type" kind of attitude. Frankly, that's just impolite.
When my friend tells me something, I listen...even if it's criticism. When someone like you comes along and acts rudely while also trying to tell me about my problems, I find it much more difficult to take what you say seriously. Why should I take advice on courtesy and respect from someone who can't show me either?
Closed Thread
)
I never said anything even remotely like that. I said it's worth thinking of. I can't exactly be held responsible if you translate "thinking" into "consuming my every waking thought."
It takes two. I don't make a point to start arguing, or set out to prove someone wrong. I read things. If I agree with them, I say something to that effect, usually. If I don't, the same applies.