EFFICIENCY=DEATH

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Something does not have to be bound by rules to be logical. I don't see your point.

The rules of logic are bound by the way we think. The way we think is bound, more or less, by the laws (or rules ... give it a name) of Nature. Thus, yes, logic is bound by rules. I don't see any corollation between logic and the metaphysical. It's a contradiction in terms, really.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Kelly, time exists outside of the mind. It is merely named time. If the mind ceased operating, time would still exist.

It is a construct of the mind based on the phenomena of cause and effect and, if you understood a word of what Hume was trying to convey, even the laws of cause and effect are theorectical because they're limited by what we can perceive with a limited amount of senses. We will always be limited to any true knowledge of a "black and white" cause ... i.e. it will always be out of our reach. At the same time, it's more or less the best we can do with what we have along with an innate sense of probability based on what has come before. Also, throw in the Einstein's laws of relativity and you'd see that even the definition of time is subjective and dynamic. How can you positively define such an entity when it is so subjective to change?

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Also, the number of humans who would survive would probably still be greater than the number who would be alive had we never advanced as a species.

Note that there are different types of intelligence and/or sensory knowledge. Who's to say that humans may not evolved along different lines (say, an instinct outside of speech and/or tool making) that would have allow us to become just as sucessful without the aid of technology?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

The rules of logic are bound by the way we think. The way we think is bound, more or less, by the laws (or rules ... give it a name) of Nature. Thus, yes, logic is bound by rules. I don't see any corollation between logic and the metaphysical. It's a contradiction in terms, really.

Logic is bound by no such thing.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

It is a construct of the mind based on the phenomena of cause and effect and, if you understood a word of what Hume was trying to convey, even the laws of cause and effect are theorectical because they're limited by what we can perceive with a limited amount of senses. We will always be limited to any true knowledge of a "black and white" cause ... i.e. it will always be out of our reach. At the same time, it's more or less the best we can do with what we have along with an innate sense of probability based on what has come before. Also, throw in the Einstein's laws of relativity and you'd see that even the definition of time is subjective and dynamic. How can you positively define such an entity when it is so subjective to change?

Time is what all natural events occur in. It has nothing to do with principles of causuality.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Note that there are different types of intelligence and/or sensory knowledge. Who's to say that humans may not evolved along different lines (say, an instinct outside of speech and/or tool making) that would have allow us to become just as sucessful without the aid of technology?

Probability theory has a lot to say about it.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Temporality and causality are inseparable. Temporality and action of any kind are inseparable. If any event occurs, time has passed. If you're claiming that these "supernatural" beings are making decisions and starting things, then there is no possible way in which time could not have passed, even in their realm. If you claim that these beings can act, then they must be temporal.

Either come up with a complete explanation for how a being can act without time passing or shut the fuck up, because the burden of proof is on you. I'm not just going to accept the rationalization that "oh gee, well, they're above temporality and logic."

Why won't you? It makes perfect sense. The fact that all events occur within time is an inductive argument. It has been observed that all events occur within time. But this argument only applies to the natural world, because as far as we know, we have not made contact with the supernatural to know its laws. The supernatural is by definition not bound by time and space as it is transcedant. Once you understand that your puny argument does not even apply by the very definition of the word, you may comprehend the gravity of what is coming out your mouth.

Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must be real, not how it could be real.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Why won't you? It makes perfect sense. The fact that all events occur within time is an inductive argument. It has been observed that all events occur within time. But this argument only applies to the natural world, because as far as we know, we have not made contact with the supernatural to know its laws. The supernatural is by definition not bound by time and space as it is transcedant. Once you understand that your puny argument does not even apply by the very definition of the word, you may comprehend the gravity of what is coming out your mouth.

Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must exist, not how it could exist.

Well, little boy, there's a problem here.

Temporality is a construct based on action and its speed. Even if a supernatural being were acting beyond our time, we could still call it temporal because it is indeed acting. So if there's such an insistence among weiners like yourself that the supernatural is non-temporal, then supernatural beings could not act or even think, since these are temporal concepts to begin with. We could not say, then, that "God created the universe," because God creating something would be a temporal action, and if we're claiming that he's non-temporal, He couldn't create at all, since it would take time.

And your precious argument isn't as sound as it seems.

All existing things are caused
Reality is an existing thing
Therefore, reality was caused

Can you see the problem?

All existing things are caused. Gee, if the supernatural was an existing thing, wouldn't the SUPERNATURAL BE CAUSED? You fucking douchebag.

[The One and Only...]

The supernatural doesn't exist, you fuckwit. It is merely real. Existence implies being within space and time, which the supernatural is not.

You are arguing from nothing.

Time (n) - "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future."

There is no indication that events must occur within time, and if there were, it would simply be false by virtue of what the supernatural entails. When will you understand that the supernatural is not bound by any natural considerations? Time is a natural consideration - nothing more. It would be illogical to assume that actions in the supernatural must occur within time.

For that matter, it would be irrational to assume that anything in the supernatural must act in order to create something. You see? It is not bound by any axioms which we have derived from the natural world. Open your eyes.

[Vibecrewangel]

Wait wait wait......
Are you saying that only things within the natural world exist?

[The One and Only...]

Now, to further prove my point, let's assume that time does exist within the supernatural. Consider this for a moment. Notice anything? Because the supernatural is not bound by natural rules, time would not have to have a beginning in the same manner that the time of the natural world does.

Thus, your point is still invalid. It is only natural time that requires a beginning point, not supernatural time.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Wait wait wait......
Are you saying that only things within the natural world exist?

Precisely. The supernatural is beyond existance. It is real, but not existing, because the concept of being is purely natural.

[Vibecrewangel]

Again, you are attemting to use words in one way when they have other more accepted meanings. And you are then expecting people to use the same narrow meaning that you are. On top of that you stated at least once that the supernatural DOES exist, now you say it doesn't. I think you "over-technicalized" your argument and thus caught yourself up in.

I've done it too......just ask Ziggy......he catches mine like every time.


I think a better argument is that the supernatural exists, but since we can only perceive things in the natural world only things in the natural world are real to us.

[Vibecrewangel]

Of course you could switch the terms real and exist in my argument and still have basically the same statement.

[The_Rorschach]

I have an unhealthy dislike for TOAO

[Vibecrewangel]

Hi Ror!

How's the surfing?

[The_Rorschach]

I hit Long Beach the weekend before last, but I was on a borrowed board and the waves were shitty. . .And a girl I was talking to at the Queens Surf threw a margarrita (sp?) at me so I left dejected. But the weather was great for Febuary

I think I am just going to bury myself in work until St Patricks day before trying again

[Vibecrewangel]

Why did she throw a drink at you?

[The_Rorschach]

Eh, she was sitting at a table by herself drawing shitty little porno-type pictures, and I let her know that if she was really interested in a train me and my boy Jon would happily oblige.

I guess she was offended or something. Moral turpitude is a bust you know.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The supernatural doesn't exist, you fuckwit. It is merely real. Existence implies being within space and time, which the supernatural is not.

You're changing your argument now, asshole:

Originally Posted by Pompous Fatass

Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must exist, not how it could exist.

Oh, but now you're going to act like you never claimed it existed at all, only that it was "real." You're a master bullshitter, nothing more, and until you can stick with your original terms, this discussion is finished. Go fuck yourself. Or better yet, go cram another twinkie in your gaping pie-hole, you fat, useless, chronically alienated, psuedo-intellectual pile of shit.

[The One and Only...]

You know what definition I meant, Artificial, and taking things out of context to compare definitions is just plain inappropriate for a message board discussion. You think this proves your point? Fine. But I know it doesn't.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You know what definition I meant, Artificial, and taking things out of context to compare definitions is just plain inappropriate for a message board discussion. You think this proves your point? Fine. But I know it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

Exist (v.) "To have actual being; be real."

That was the defintion we were all using. You suddenly narrowed it down with "to have being in a naturalistic context" to save face when your lousy syllogism proved unsound.

And no, I don't think this "proves" my point, but I'm not willing to discuss anything more with you until you grow up and cut this sleight-of-hand bullshit.

So, like I said, go to town on that twinkie, fatty.

[The One and Only...]

Update: Posts changed so that the meaning of exists is consistent.

In responce to the criticism of my theory (which, as I said before, is more or less obselete since I discovered the cosmological argument), I was operating under different meanings for reality.

Change the argument so that it reads...

All existing things are caused
The natural world is an existing thing
Therefore, the natural world was caused

Note that this is different from the argument I've been making in this thread, which is based on time. Rather than showing the inconsistency of infinite time, the argument makes its basis on the principle of universal causuality.

As far as for what you just posted, that would change a lot of the terminology which I have used. Because I don't feel like editing my posts again - realise that the principle of universal causation only applies to things which exist within the natural world, rather than in reality. Time is similar - it only applies to things which exist inside the natural world.

You may note that because time cannot be natural, the principle of universal causation cannot be applied to time itself. But this is not the basis of the argument - rather, an infinite time would be inconsistent with the natural world's processes.

[The One and Only...]

And just to point something out - I post all this crap on the board because I want you guys to point out inconsistencies in my arguments, such as the one regarding terminology which was just pointed out. Did it ruin the argument? No. Just needed a little tune-up. But had I not posted it, I probably never would have been enlightened and continued to argue from my narrow definition of exist.

[Helm]

All existing things are caused
The natural world is an existing thing
Therefore, the natural world was caused

Did you understand nothing the last time I explained axiomatic mutial exclusivity (context cosality etc) to you? Why do you torment us so with your highschool primer philosophy dribble when you should be alone in your room reading your Plato or something?

[Helm]

In fact, read Beyond Good and Evil for the book club thing and pay special attention to the mentionings of reductio ad absurdum... you're doing a pretty good job at that.

[Vibecrewangel]

No. Just needed a little tune-up. But had I not posted it, I probably never would have been enlightened and continued to argue from my narrow definition of exist.

My work here is done.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

Did you understand nothing the last time I explained axiomatic mutial exclusivity (context cosality etc) to you? Why do you torment us so with your highschool primer philosophy dribble when you should be alone in your room reading your Plato or something?

Yes, I understood. But you should have read my rebuttal.

Also, the principle of universal causation is not so much an axiom as it is an inductive argument.

[theapportioner]

Okay. How do you argue it, then?