Another example of you still seeing things as you want them to be as opposed to how they really are.  So, no, nothing new at all.

I've already explained to you that I don't see things the way they are, nor do I really care. What I haven't explained is that I see things the way my brain wants to see them. I, of course, can not control this. In some areas, I am pretty sharp, but in others, I'm a veritable sloth. It ultimately depends on how long it takes for something to come to my attention. I don't control the thought queue; I'm a slave to it.

In summary:

1. Ryu takes pleasure in being a dick.

2. Jodo is one very thoughtful (and very wordy) individual.

3. God may or may not exist on one of an infinitely variable number of levels, yet (for some reason) many people like to claim they know how and where.

Seriously though, Ryu, when Jodo said "it seems I have disturbed you" it was a polite and unassuming way of responding to this bullsh*t trashtalk:

"I consistently remain unimpressed with your threads and posts like these."

Then why the hell do you bother? It's an open forum, Jodo can post as he pleases, so if you don't find any depth in these posts just gtfo and let the wonderers do their wondering. Everything Jodo has written makes sense, and is legitimate. If you think it's all "pseudoprofundity", fine, but don't be an ass about it. Personally, I think it's important not to take the very simple things for granted but rather think about their relationship to other things. And pondering the nature of existence and the possibility of some "supernatural" entity or divine Creator is not exactly worthless, even if it forever remains fruitless.

Ramza

PS - I'm interested in this PKD fellow. I wonder if removing freedom of religion from a human's rights would really do any good in solving issues of violence; obviously, you'd have a large faction of people who would disagree, and that would (more than likely) result in bloodshed. I'm a big fan of the one character's "put up or shut up" option for the more proselytizing folk. As a Christian, I do think there are plenty of viable ways to live up to the "Great Commission" of Matt. 28 without starting any wars or really proselytizing in general, but I wonder if I am wrong in thinking this.

Just as Jodo can, I can post as I please.  That also answers your question.  No mod has called out my posts as being against any rules, so they are legitimate.  What he said wasn't 'unassuming'.  Unlike h3 and Jodo, I didn't attempt to question the intelligence of others; all I said was I don't see how any of this can make one's head spin.

Oh please be a whiny little baby.

By waving these problems away so simply you undermine the efforts of many intelligent philosophers and theists. This isn't a BS problem, and I'm sure you barely understand the technicalities of the matter e.g. Occam's Razor, underdetermination of a theory its data, proving negatives, falsification and theory competition, possibility vs. probability etc.

If anything, you portray yourself to be the snobby pseudo-intellect. I can say that I would accept your position on this if you displayed any serious and worthy intellect forged upon intelligent argumentation, but there was none. You just fart and run, and I don't see how you could expect many to not see you as a hack.

Head spinning and bafflement are not the same. If something makes my head spin, then it's usually a quick, intense source of confusion. It shortly dissipates and makes way for clear thoughts. If something is baffling, then that means I have already attempted the clear thinking and see no resolution. The most baffling thing I have run across so far is the Cantor-Schroder-Bernstein theorem. It ultimately states that one infinity can be larger than another and there are infinitely many sizes of infinity. My grandpa, a former engineer at NASA, even finds the notion unpalatable. I have read several explanations of the theorem in clear English as well as studied the theorem itself, yet I am not content with it.
It is so disagreeable, it makes me doubt the validity of higher mathematics, or even what purpose it serves. It may be that it is so shocking it will take several decades to understand it.

   As for reality, I can think clearly about it and feel more content as I go. In fact, my existence gives me "experience points" with reality. The longer I exist, the better I can understand reality.

   I'm not sure why you think I questioned your intelligence. The intelligence of humans is not in question, but your existence is. I'm more sure of your intelligence than your existence....

h3, I've not put forth any theory here nor have I made any pretense that I have, so I have had no opportunity of coming off as a "snobby pseudo-intellect".  Don't project on me.  I have waved no problems away; all I've done is stated that these things don't make my head spin and it was at that point you became overly defensive.

You are more than welcome to explain how I misused Ockham's razor since you keep making mention of that.  I'll pretend to be amused for you.  You are also more than welcome to remove your head from your ass and get back on topic, you "whiny little baby".

Have you, just for fun, considered the reverse---that the longer you exist the less you understand reality (using the 'as it is' definition)?

Thanks, that's reassuring.

Haha, project. Well, let's BOTH not be children and stop using derogatory terms. If you have an inkling of maturity you know this will boil down into a flame war with no progress. I have no interest in pawning people over the internet anymore. It's no fun.

I am a philosophy student. I do plan to pursue a PhD in Philosophy in a top graduate school in N.A. I probably do have far deeper knowledge about these things that you don't. And I wasn't overly defensive at all -- I just became arrogant and laughed at your pathetic handwaves. I apologise.

Now look, Occam's Razor has many variations, the one for which is applicable to the God debate being choosing the simpler theory that presupposes less metaphysical entities or mechanisms while holding equal explanatory value. The problem is that OR does NOT choose the *right* theory but rather the one that is more USEFUL and SIMPLE for explanation. In other words, let's try a simple case.

Let's say a blue ball rolls across a plane, gets occluded by a giant block of wood and then on the other end, a pink ball rolls out. So we have competing theories now, one is that there were two balls and that the blue ball knocked the pink ball behind the block and that moved. The other is that the blue ball was somehow changed by a person behind the scenes into a pink ball (by say, some quick chemical reaction that doesn't rely on drying like wet paint). OR would choose the first theory because it's simpler, but the fact of the matter is that either could really be true. You could even have the second theory be the actual case and have OR still choose the first case.

That's because OR is not methodologically a "truth detector" but something more like a rule of thumb for choosing a theory that minimizes computational load for modelling the situation. As such, application of OR into a topic like God's existence is driven by the pragmatic need, but the problem is that debates about God AREN'T about pragmatics but about ascertaining the "ultimate truth" or something like that (this doesn't mean I don't know what it is, I'm just skeptical of truths).. As such, OR really doesn't work well in this debate.

It doesn't answer my question. That you CAN post as you please doesn't tell me why you did, unless my first point in the list of conclusions (that you enjoy being a dick) is true. If you're okay with this assumption, then I guess it's settled.

Right...oh wait, you also insinuated that h3 is a bitch. While I appreciate the subtlety of the attack, I don't appreciate the attack in general. Of course, I was much less subtle in calling out your dickery (if that's a word, I win $2000 for being cool.)

I didn't realize there were mods actively patrolling these boards for people that mock others, but if there are, they may as well ban you for the bitch reference and me for the dick talk. It would probably solve a lot, and then Jodo can get back to his posting of "existential" questions without you derailing the topic.

Ramza

I invented the word "wankery" and use it quite frequently, and since "dick" and "wank" (or "wanker") are synonymous, my internal lexicon of made up words says that dickery is a word by default. Good job; IOU 2K.

See also: cockery, prickery, junkery, etc.

You weren't subtle at all.  I'm glad you appreciate my round-about way, but it is a shame you couldn't emulate it.  However, my insinuation came much later when the derailment was rather assured, as opposed to my simple post that began this.  Your favoritism is noted.

As for being ok with your assumption, I'm never ok with any such assumption.  It's a sign of weakness, really, which explains why it is so common.  Including my opinion which was somehow upsetting to those peddling here I have done nothing to prohibit Jodo from posting on topic or anyone else.  All I've done is respond when I became the topic; I will continue to do so.

As for 'dickery' being a word, I know it from a rhyme when I was younger about some mouse and a clock.

You are right that the insinuation against h3 was made well after the topic went from "find the flaw in Jodo's logic" to "let's argue with Ryu." I do admit to having favoritism towards Jodo, as I've had much reason to respect him since I first bumped e-shoulders with him...7 years ago. h3, however, I don't know anything about.

I had considered this as well, but on a point of sheer technicality, I believe the word you're thinking of is "Dickory." Hickory Dickory Dock. This, too, is an excellent word (is it a name?). But Zane's explanation made me laugh too.

If the topic *wasn't* derailed before, I sure as hell did it with this last point. I'm smiling again.

Merry Christmas to all who would care (or at least get some free crap from relatives).

Ramza

Well, h3 isn't a she, for one : B

And I didn't get a reply regarding my serious post on the flaw of Occam's Razor. Sigh. Why do I bother?

The arrogance thing is a turn-off after all.  Besides, we seem to have agreed, just in time for the holiday, to let things rest.  I suppose my application of OR differs from the intended use that you describe.  Instead of its use for competing theories I meant in regards to the multiplying of entities for the formulation of a theory itself.

If you would only look in the mirror to realize your own arrogance.

You're still wrong.

You use it with regards to the multiplying of entities in the formulation of a theory as a general way to KEEP IT computationally minimal. You still don't get it. OR is NOT a truth detector.

I do get it and have had it for quite a while.  I know what OR is for and how it can be used.  I had said, "even if you wish to defy Ockham's Razor and spruce it up with faux complications."  The logical fallacies employed come to mind as well.

You may think, just because you are a philosophy student, that you are the sole keeper of that knowledge and hence explains your tendency to plant your head so far up where it has been, but you aren't.  I'm not entirely sure what proof you have of my arrogance (*cough*projection*cough*), because stating that there is nothing 'head-spinning' about what has been said isn't arrogant, but your own admission and your assumptions about others are all the proof I need.  The latter of which brought about the dickishness of which Ramza complains, and such dickishness is not the same as arrogance.  Oh, and you're wrong.  Merry Christmas.

I don't think that just because I'm a philosophy student.. I mean, I've already brought myself to face you as a person, and yet you still hold this overbearing attitude. Is it no suprise that so many on this board dislike you? You're funny to think it's not arrogance.

You still made no point about OR. Regardless, this argument ends here I guess.

How many is "so many"?

"I mean, I've already brought myself to face you as a person..." oh, wow, thanks... "and yet you still hold this overbearing attitude."  Yeah, I guess that is mysterious why.  Luckily your study and loving of wisdom might one day help you figure out that one.

What point is there to make about OR?  We take what what was said, consider that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything", how I said that some of which were faux complications, such are intrinsically unnecessary, and ta-da!  Had you "brought" yourself to face me "as a person" sooner, instead of jumping to that prickishness, then perhaps you would've had an opportunity to figure out what I meant and shined your philosophy student brightness upon us all so as to correct me.  As it stands, just because you finally stepped down from your pedestal to face me doesn't mean I have to face you, the apology notwithstanding.

Happy trails on the bandwagon with the 'so many' that dislikes me.

You ask too much, it would do you good to be more understanding.

And it's not a bandwagon I'm hopping on. You are too quick to judge, I only feel truly sorry for you.

I've been elsewhere for the past 10 days or so, but I haven't considered the reverse. I have to admit that what you typed is thought provoking. Generally, the more you know, the more you know there is more you don't know. It could reach a point at which you know so much that you are incapable of making decisions. That would result from having to consider the things you know (which are many) and the things you don't know (which, somehow, increase as you know more - this is a contradiction as I see it.)

  I'm glad you mentioned it. It was fun.