If you remove guns you remove gun violence....
Ah, I see now. I referred to the "removal of [a] factor", not to a ban on instances thereof. What I meant is that there would still be violence in a world without religion (though perhaps less, and obviously no religiously incited violence), just as there would still be violence in a world without guns (again, perhaps less -- or perhaps not -- and again, obviously there would be no gun violence); reflections on the uncertainty of ultimate outcomes, not about stringent gun control laws (which are not, after all, the same thing as removing the factor of guns altogether) or banning religion (which, for the record, I wouldn't favour even if it would work).

That quote is pretty standard, in the different translations/interpretations of the tao.

are you suggesting Lao Tzu (I think that's his supposed name) was attacking Godels paradoxes? I think your weed is better than mine.

If he was that would be freakin amazing since, if he existed, it was a couple of thousand years before Gödel.



I think your weed is better than mine.

Maybe in a couple of days, but now...

BECAUSE THEY DO NOT!!! They merely raise your probability of getting cancer. Excellent example I thank you.

Yes, and getting shot in the head greatly raises the possibility of death. You've pretty defeated yourself, thanks.

You really should print out this thread, take it to the university and ask for a refund for your degree, because you really don't deserve it.

The tao that can be named, is not the true tao


Yes as a name limits a constrains that which is everything...I always saw this as a clever way to get around Gödel's paradoxes
If he was that would be freakin amazing since, if he existed, it was a couple of thousand years before Gödel.


you just pwned yourself...perhaps you should go ahead for a few pages, get it out of your system.

*passes popcorn to TBK*

It boils down to absolute knowability once again. Unless there is at least some room to change your mind and develop different theories you will end up with the dogmatics. Ex:


We don't need absolute, omiscient knowability, to believe something to be true.
Were there evidence, it would be considered. Considering there isn't any, as you've agreed, (as can be seconded by the complete and total lack of accumulated data supporting theism, in all of man's research, in all of time, forever)...and all that remains is the minute probability...so miniscule as to be redundant to consider in the set of any but the most wildly improbable theoretical models. That's where you come in.

Zap, you, it seems, are reduced to claiming Godels incompleteness theorem, enables a taoist such as yourself to envision the possibility of god (although how this can be rectified with the tao is everything and nothing etc...would be interesting if you weren't so snotty about it)



wrong, I state For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.1 That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. You many know many things from a theory, but not all things.

This is not my argument for god, but my "hole poke" to the ...what was the term yall wanted..."dogmatic atheist".

Godel states as much. You are borrowing it. Note where you say elementary arithmetic, and theory. Mathematics are the province of man, the symbols, and interpretation of them, are ours, and somewhat arbitrary. They are but an attempt. Math can't paralell the natural world in exact detail. More variables than equations to house them, so to speak.

The ability of a mathmatitian to proof a classic mathematical paradox doesn't pertain very well to the question of whether there is a god...unless by proof of god you mean "is there an absolute anything anywhere, that can't be challenged ad absurdum in theory".

I could take any assertion of yours, say, "what if it's a dream, and other rules apply, of which you are not aware" and technically redefine the question, to out-"meta" the question posed. It's a shell game, and it's intellectually dishonest in a conversation occuring outside of the realm of theoretical math.

:pottytrai

Yes, and getting shot in the head greatly raises the possibility of death. You've pretty defeated yourself, thanks.

You really should print out this thread, take it to the university and ask for a refund for your degree, because you really don't deserve it.

Have you really no fucking clue about science? Time, sample size...well I am gunna leave for a bit while you and bobby keep tuggin on each others giggle bits.

you just pwned yourself...perhaps you should go ahead for a few pages, get it out of your system.

*passes popcorn to TBK*

Not even a little bit...

We don't need absolute, omiscient knowability, to believe something to be true.
Were there evidence, it would be considered. Considering there isn't any, as you've agreed, (as can be seconded by the complete and total lack of accumulated data supporting theism, in all of man's research, in all of time, forever)...and all that remains is the minute probability...so miniscule as to be redundant to consider in the set of any but the most wildly improbable theoretical models. That's where you come in.

Good god man, I used the example since its meaning had been established in the thread, so that I could elucidate my point.


Zap, you, it seems, are reduced to claiming Godels incompleteness theorem, enables a taoist such as yourself to envision the possibility of god (although how this can be rectified with the tao is everything and nothing etc...would be interesting if you weren't so snotty about it)

So only your side can be condescending fucktards? I wills be a'nice next time I's a sorry fo my sass... if you notice it was only directed to the fundamentalist colon polyps that have been insulting peoples ideas the entire time...Next time I wont be such a big dick and hurt your mangina...

[QUOTE=bobyclumsyninjaGodel states as much. You are borrowing it. Note where you say elementary arithmetic, and theory. Mathematics are the province of man, the symbols, and interpretation of them, are ours, and somewhat arbitrary. They are but an attempt. Math can't paralell the natural world in exact detail. More variables than equations to house them, so to speak.[/QUOTE]

Hence my argument for TOE

We don't need absolute, omiscient knowability, to believe something to be true.

No my point is you need deductive reasons to KNOW (not believe something to be true...anti-fundamentalism)

Zap, you, it seems, are reduced to claiming Godels incompleteness theorem, enables a taoist such as yourself to envision the possibility of god (although how this can be rectified with the tao is everything and nothing etc...would be interesting if you weren't so snotty about it)

On a side note I wanted to apologize to TBK as I recently found out that you are actually a small man. I was just inferring from your posts that you had the complex, and I did not actually know you were so small. So my apologies bro no more short, or miniscule, or yappy dog jokes from here on out I will stick to the funny stuff without actually resorting to needling.

ZapBruder- I owe you an apology dude, you answered an earlier post of mine that had a typo. I previously, meant to assert that the God of Classical Theism and the Tao could NOT be compared, as the Classical theistic God is a being and the concept of Tao, most definitly, is not.

Your thoughts on this?

It seems to me that the God you've been argueing for is one that has a slightly different definition to the one the others are arguing against. If only because, the classical theistic definition, leaves no room for the notion of Tao and a Taoist would struggle to reconcile the notion of a staic, unchanging God figure as the core of all reality. One of the key principles of Taoism is change!

Good god man, I used the example since its meaning had been established in the thread, so that I could elucidate my point.



So only your side can be condescending fucktards? I wills be a'nice next time I's a sorry fo my sass... if you notice it was only directed to the fundamentalist colon polyps that have been insulting peoples ideas the entire time...Next time I wont be such a big dick and hurt your mangina...



Hence my argument for TOE

Zap,
Yeah just keep denying to yourself that you are an extreemist to your own beliefs.
Saying most of us are fundimentalists is not an argument. it comes under namecalling.

BTW dont pick me up on my spelling when you make Plenty of mistakes of your own.

1) it is hypocrasy

2) its not how a rational person argues (it is attempting to discredit the opposing view through Irrelevant means)

3) its also not the debating method of someone who is confident in their own arguments (it is attempting to derail the argument)

BTW dont pick me up on my spelling

Would you rather I complement your eyes, or buy you a drink...how do you want me to pick you up?

Nice shoes

ZapBruder- I owe you an apology dude, you answered an earlier post of mine that had a typo. I previously, meant to assert that the God of Classical Theism and the Tao could NOT be compared, as the Classical theistic God is a being and the concept of Tao, most definitly, is not.

Your thoughts on this?
I take it by classical theist you mean the judeochrislam model? Unless you get into the smaller sects like the Sufi's, yes all of them run into the God paradox.

Zap,
Yeah just keep denying to yourself that you are an extreemist to your own beliefs.
Saying most of us are fundimentalists is not an argument. it comes under namecalling.

I am an
extreemist because I extremely dont like extremism?

Have you really no fucking clue about science?

I know quite a bit. Scientific method and logic really helps me out in my career.



Time, sample size...well I am gunna leave for a bit while you and bobby keep tuggin on each others giggle bits.

Would you like to go on record as saying that cigarettes do not cause cancer? Really, c'mon. You are speaking as if probability increases doesn't mean "cause" where in reality, in laymen terms ( which are the definitions we are using ) it does.

In fact, it's rather hilarious that you would argue that cigarettes do not cause cancer. The very same website you linked to about fallacies shows that the argument that cigarettes causes cancer is not a logical fallacy.



2. Type-Level: A causal law has the form:

Events of type C cause events of type E.

Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. For example, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. Rather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer.

Why do you insist no defeating your own arguments so soundly?


By your logic, I can't see anything as being a cause of any event. Can you give me an example of a "genuine cause" according to your world view? If cigarettes don't cause cancer and guns don't cause death, is there a such a thing as a cause?