"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm saying grampy bobby likes to play games with people.

Chalk up another one who "gets it".

See, it really isn't so damn hard to figure out.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I repeat: If you're not actually interested in discussing such things, then why bother wasting everyone's time?

Come on, say it a third time, even after being proven wrong before saying it the second time. Come on, say it!

Wuss.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Come on, say it a third time, even after being proven wrong before saying it the second time. Come on, say it!

Wuss.

Man you've gotten cranky since I was last here...

Also less reasonable.

Which is a shame.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Man you've gotten cranky since I was last here...

Also less reasonable.

Which is a shame.

googlefudge!!!! if i were a dog i'd wag my tail.......maybe sniff your bum or something.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time.

Ok, But to apply any lessons you learn from this hypothetical you need to actually
demonstrate that such a dilemma actually exists in reality.

If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each
of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually
reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the
only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)

First, as has been said before, it's not offering a gift if you are given a choice between
a desirable event and an undesirable one...
If a stranger came into your house uninvited and said... "I have presents for all of you that
come to my place and love me unconditionally until you die. Oh! and btw I am going to shoot
you in the head if you refuse... "
Then it's not a gift being offered but an ultimatum.

If their is a 'reward' on one side of the ultimatum then it is earned by accepting the ultimatum.
So in your hypothetical it is an ultimatum and not a gift being offered, and it's not unearned
as gifts are unearned almost by definition (otherwise they are payment) and any rewards
gained by making the 'correct' (as defined by the one giving the ultimatum) choice when facing
an ultimatum are earned BY making the 'correct' choice in the ultimatum.


Second, As has also been said... To be said to be rejecting an offer, let alone repeatedly rejecting
it, you have to be both aware of the offers existence and believe that the offer is real and
genuine. Now you could claim this as a requisite of your hypothetical but this does not actually
map to reality. As this is clearly about your religions claim that following your religion leads one
to the 'reward' of spending eternity in heaven with your god, a claim common to many religions,
and not following your religion leads to either the cessation of existence (possibly after being
tortured) or of eternal torture...
Then to, in reality as opposed to your hypothetical, be said to be rejecting this 'offer' you would
have to believe that the offer was real and genuine... Which I, along with every other atheist and
follower of different religions and people who have never heard of your religion, don't believe.
I don't believe that your god exists, I don't believe that their is such a thing as spirit or soul,
I don't believe that there is an afterlife...
I believe that we are our bodies, and when they break down, we cease to exist.

However, lets say for a moment that I did think that there was an afterlife, that I did have a soul,
and that your god and this offer were real...


Now let us take a look at the nature of this "reward" or gift that your hypothetical is claiming
is on offer...

The hypothetical being, this "powerful [and] eternal entity", is offering an eternity spent with it
or an eternity spent separated from it.

Now eternity, like infinity, is an easy thing to bandy about... but impossible to comprehend.
Their is no way that we can understand an what an infinite period of time might be like.

So I am going to consider what it might be like to spend a shorter period of time with this being...
Given the nature of infinity an infinitely shorter period of time.

I am going to consider what it would be like to spend 3^^^3 years (Knuth's up-arrow notation*)
with this being. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation

Now most people have not been taught Knuth's up-arrow notation, so I will give a very quick
description of what 3^^^3 means...

3^^^3 is the same as 3^3^3... 7,625,597,484,987 ...^3

Basically you write "^3" 7,625,597,484,987 times... at the top of this pile of ^3's ~ 7.6 trillion high
you get 3^3 which is 27 (3*3*3=27), so the tower of threes is now 1 shorter and ends 3^27 ...
3 ^ 27 = 7,625,597,484,987 ...
so the tower of threes is now 2 shorter and ends 3^7,625,597,484,987 ...
3^7,625,597,484,987 is 3 times itself 7,625,597,484,987 times... I can't write this number,
it's too big...
So the tower of threes is now 3 shorter and ends 3^the number we got last time...



To get an idea of how ridiculously huge 3^^^3 is, you have to realise that it doesn't really make
a whole lot of difference whether you are going to spend 3^^^3 plank units of time or 3^^^3
multiples of the age of the universe with this being. The difference of 50~60 orders of mag between
the two are comparatively so small that you can consider them for all practical purposes as being the
same thing...
In other words 3^^^3 / 10^60 is appx = to 3^^^3.

Another way of looking at it is that their are about 10^80 atoms in the visible universe.
If you spent 1 year with this being for every atom in the visible universe you would still have
about 3^^^3 years to go...

and as I said at the top... 3^^^3 is INFINITELY less than infinity.



Now for your "reward" to be attractive, you need to describe for me a place I would want to be,
and company I would want to keep, for at least 3^^^3 years. Without me going insane.

Otherwise your two scenarios are functionally identical. It doesn't matter if in one I go insane
after the age of the universe and in the other I go insane after 2 months... in both I still
spend the first 3^^^3 years being insane... With infinity still to go.




Also, theists often claim that their god is infinite (in age and scale)... which is very easy to say.

But try imagining a god that has an mind 3^^^3 in age and scale... and then imagine a being that
vast caring if someone masturbates or not...

http://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2013/05/14-This-nonreligious-Universe-4187.html

Originally posted by stellspalfie
googlefudge!!!! if i were a dog i'd wag my tail.......maybe sniff your bum or something.

Ummm thanks... I think

;-)

Originally posted by googlefudge

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time.

Ok, But to apply any lessons you learn from this hypothetical you need to actually
demonstrate that such a dilemma actually exists in reality.

[quote]If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each
of us the unearned and undeserved g ...[text shortened]... logspot.com/2013/05/14-This-nonreligious-Universe-4187.html

A master of the strawman argument -- googlefudge.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
A master of the strawman argument -- googlefudge.

The Instructor

For an argument to be a strawman it must misrepresent the opposing sides
position in such a way as to make it easy to argue against.
Then it knocks down that new easy to defeat position and claims victory.


I am interested to know how you think I misrepresented the content of the op.
(hint... I didn't)

Given your own mastery of strawman arguments I am expecting a detailed
description of exactly how I misrepresented GB's stated position.


Otherwise I am calling bulls*** on your pathetic response.

Also a thumbs up? seriously?
Time to go back to school and learn what a strawman argument actually looks
like.

If you want some good examples just go read pretty much anything 'Hinds has
written about evolution.

Originally posted by googlefudge
For an argument to be a strawman it must misrepresent the opposing sides
position in such a way as to make it easy to argue against.
Then it knocks down that new easy to defeat position and claims victory.


I am interested to know how you think I misrepresented the content of the op.
(hint... I didn't)

Given your own mastery of strawman argum ...[text shortened]... nt some good examples just go read pretty much anything 'Hinds has
written about evolution.

still wagging........honestly throw me a cyber-stick and ill bring it back.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time.

Ok, But to apply any lessons you learn from this hypothetical you need to actually
demonstrate that such a dilemma actually exists in reality.

[quote]If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each
of us the unearned and undeserved g ...[text shortened]... logspot.com/2013/05/14-This-nonreligious-Universe-4187.html

"So I am going to consider what it might be like to spend a shorter period of time with this being...
Given the nature of infinity an infinitely shorter period of time.

I am going to consider what it would be like to spend 3^^^3 years (Knuth's up-arrow notation*)
with this being. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation

Now most people have not been taught Knuth's up-arrow notation, so I will give a very quick
description of what 3^^^3 means...

3^^^3 is the same as 3^3^3... 7,625,597,484,987 ...^3

Basically you write "^3" 7,625,597,484,987 times... at the top of this pile of ^3's ~ 7.6 trillion high
you get 3^3 which is 27 (3*3*3=27), so the tower of threes is now 1 shorter and ends 3^27 ...
3 ^ 27 = 7,625,597,484,987 ...
so the tower of threes is now 2 shorter and ends 3^7,625,597,484,987 ...
3^7,625,597,484,987 is 3 times itself 7,625,597,484,987 times... I can't write this number,
it's too big...
So the tower of threes is now 3 shorter and ends 3^the number we got last time...

To get an idea of how ridiculously huge 3^^^3 is, you have to realise that it doesn't really make
a whole lot of difference whether you are going to spend 3^^^3 plank units of time or 3^^^3
multiples of the age of the universe with this being. The difference of 50~60 orders of mag between
the two are comparatively so small that you can consider them for all practical purposes as being the
same thing...
In other words 3^^^3 / 10^60 is appx = to 3^^^3.

Another way of looking at it is that their are about 10^80 atoms in the visible universe.
If you spent 1 year with this being for every atom in the visible universe you would still have
about 3^^^3 years to go...

and as I said at the top... 3^^^3 is INFINITELY less than infinity.

Now for your "reward" to be attractive, you need to describe for me a place I would want to be,
and company I would want to keep, for at least 3^^^3 years. Without me going insane.

Otherwise your two scenarios are functionally identical. It doesn't matter if in one I go insane
after the age of the universe and in the other I go insane after 2 months... in both I still
spend the first 3^^^3 years being insane... With infinity still to go." (gf)

"Time" represents language of accommodation. The Unit of Measure of Eternity is neither "Time", nor an Approximation or Derivative of "Time". There is No Unit of "Time" in Eternity, except The Eternal and Immutable Attributes of God. (gb)

Originally posted by googlefudge
For an argument to be a strawman it must misrepresent the opposing sides
position in such a way as to make it easy to argue against.
Then it knocks down that new easy to defeat position and claims victory.


I am interested to know how you think I misrepresented the content of the op.
(hint... I didn't)

Given your own mastery of strawman argum ...[text shortened]... nt some good examples just go read pretty much anything 'Hinds has
written about evolution.

And I was giving you a compliment and you did not know it. You should be thankful that I consider you a master of something.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Suzianne
But then again, I understand English, and I understand everyday colloquial or slang usage, as does anyone who is normal and hears it every single day of their life.

It seems you forget that this is an international website and I am Zambian, and not familiar with that particular slang. Hence my request for clarification. Its interesting that instead of getting a straightforward explanation I get rudeness.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Purple Memo" [an arresting visual focus adjective coupled with an every day slang phrase] in context was intended to draw attention to the fact that one hundred and sixty two (162) post later, sadly, you still don't have a clue. (gb)

Yes, it is sad that you consistently refuse to explain what you mean and instead to go great lengths to obfusticate. Why do you do that?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Yes, it is sad that you consistently refuse to explain what you mean and instead to go great lengths to obfusticate. Why do you do that?

"What is the Purple Memo?" (twhitehead)
___________________

o ---> "Purple: of the color purple; regal, imperial. Origin of PURPLE Middle English purpel, alteration of purper, from Old English purpuran of purple, genitive of purpure purple color, from Latin purpura, from Greek porphyra
First Known Use: before 12th century." (/Merriam-webster.com) o ---> "Memo: get the memo, to be aware." (onlineslangdictionary.com)

o ---> "Purple Memo" [an arresting visual focus adjective coupled with an every day slang phrase] in context was intended to draw attention to the fact that one hundred and sixty two (162) post later, sadly, you still don't have a clue." (gb)
_________________

"Yes, it is sad that you consistently refuse to explain what you mean and instead to go great lengths to obfusticate. Why do you do that?" (twhitehead)
____________________

o ---> "Time" represents language of accommodation. The Unit of Measure of Eternity is neither "Time", nor an Approximation or Derivative of "Time". There is No Unit of "Time" in Eternity, except The Eternal and Immutable Attributes of God." (gb)
_________________

What more do you need? (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What more do you need? (gb)

An explanation as to why you go to such great length to obfusticate. What is the point of posting in this forum if you clearly don't want anyone to understand you?