Your top 10 reasons for rejecting Christianity

[Bomb#20]

Okay, so now that we've exhaustingly established that the supernaturalists have no idea what they even mean by "nature", and, consequently, what they mean by "natural" and "supernatural", and when challenged on this point they are reduced to relying on ad hominems, this brings us back around to the thread topic. Reason number 1 for rejecting Christianity was its wretched ethics; reason number 2 is its wretched meta-ethics.

The Christian explanation for the truthmaker for moral claims -- what it is about a good act that makes it good -- is that it is obedience to God's will. This they call "Divine Command Theory"; those of us who are less deferential call it "Your Honor, I was just following orders." Of course Christians understand perfectly well that that's a garbage meta-ethical theory when the orders come from him who must not be named, or, avoiding that comparison, let us say, from Joseph Stalin. As we've seen upthread, the Christian God is the Supreme Fascist and on the merits of their behavior it's kind of hard to tell Him and Stalin apart; but never mind that. As justification for claiming Divine Command Theory is intrinsically different from Stalin Command Theory, the Christians do not point to any behavioral difference between God and Stalin. Even if they could, that would entirely defeat the purpose of their apologetics. To do so would be to acknowledge the existence of a standard of virtue that God must conform to to be good, a moral law that not even God is above. If there is such an objective standard then Divine Command Theory is in the dumpster -- God even if His commands are perfect is still reduced to the status of a mere messenger. So to justify treating Divine Command Theory differently from Stalin Command Theory, the Christians point elsewhere. They claim Divine Command Theory is different from Stalin Command Theory because Stalin and his commands are merely "natural", whereas God and His commands are "supernatural". On this distinction the analogy between Divine Command Theory and Stalin Command Theory breaks down in their view.

But, as we've seen, supernaturalists have no clue what they mean by "natural" and "supernatural". Those are nothing but content-free labels, which Christians attach to Command Theories they want us to reject and Command Theories they want us to accept. Which is to say, Christian meta-ethics is a vanilla "special pleading" fallacy.

 

[SIB]

Well I don't think the context was regarding 'short time death; or immediate flatlining, when the brain is still alive. Nice try posters!

The line from SIB's post , " when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will.." seems to me the implication means, that it's at some point in the future, we'll have the means. Literally raising the long deceased, brain dead - just as those who beleive in the same for the future in Cryonics, cryopreserving their bodies in the belief that ,the future advancement in science will to bring them back.

You are in great error to think this would be in the theists "favour", that this would be used as proof for Religion. It's odd, simply because the belief is: ONLY God can bring people back to life, not even satan could etc...

What you misunderstand - IF humans were able to be brought back to life, by humans. THEN Christianity will have a serious problem, there's no doubt about that. So why would that be a good idea to use that as proof?

Sorry, I am figuring out this site.

I would hope they would see your logic before then.

To me, Christians can have "a god" and even keep calling it Jesus if they would just move to using it as a "focal point" for a set of memes. Moving jesus from the "literal flesh" and moving him to more of a meme ... poof, one can have him rise as often as one would like.

Interesting... "poof, one can have him rise as often as one would like." would that actually be advantageous to the theist, if he or she used that line of method?

In keeping with the religion, I think of a meme like I do a fish or a bird. A school of memes acting as a unit looks like life's journey through the here and now. Or is that a bait ball?

Even a bait ball is offering life.

Would religion be the only sector of society to possess a school of memes, as you're putting it? 'A school of memes... like life's journey' would be the same for all sectors of the society would it not?

Perhaps I haven't understood correctly, but I DO get bait-ball invitations, and all types of offers, through the post all the time - usually products or deals from various companies. I will say though, there have been some invitations from some of the local churches, offering life, as it's usually preached from those faiths.

It seems bait-balling (if I'm using the right context as you) is necessary in todays world, to be successful and competitively marketable. Admittedly, and yes of course... some of the churches (prosperity organizations) you see on TV are doing just that.

To the bolded parts ...

would that actually be advantageous to the theist
Would it be advantageous? Yes, I think a non literal Jesus can work. Heck, at least its human. Again, it gets back to things like gardens and pets to me. People have some strange connections to gardens and pets to me. So why wouldn't we see those connections to "nature".

Jesus going from literally rising, to figuratively rising, on to "the memes he was teaching" rising is stepping in the right direction to me. If people can allow "growth" of a belief based on observation that might allow for self correction over time. Sure its not as fast as we like but it would help I think.

Would religion be the only sector of society to possess a school of memes, as you're putting it?
If we process what people are doing in religion we will see it in any organization I should think. Religion makes up anything they want to be real sometimes. I certainty see that in politics, education, and law enforcement. To bad, in a lot of cases, the wackiest of "us" get into leadership roles all the time.

 

[Politesse]

Okay, so now that we've exhaustingly established that the supernaturalists have no idea what they even mean by "nature", and, consequently, what they mean by "natural" and "supernatural", and when challenged on this point they are reduced to relying on ad hominems, this brings us back around to the thread topic. Reason number 1 for rejecting Christianity was its wretched ethics; reason number 2 is its wretched meta-ethics.

The Christian explanation for the truthmaker for moral claims -- what it is about a good act that makes it good -- is that it is obedience to God's will. This they call "Divine Command Theory"; those of us who are less deferential call it "Your Honor, I was just following orders." Of course Christians understand perfectly well that that's a garbage meta-ethical theory when the orders come from him who must not be named, or, avoiding that comparison, let us say, from Joseph Stalin. As we've seen upthread, the Christian God is the Supreme Fascist and on the merits of their behavior it's kind of hard to tell Him and Stalin apart; but never mind that. As justification for claiming Divine Command Theory is intrinsically different from Stalin Command Theory, the Christians do not point to any behavioral difference between God and Stalin. Even if they could, that would entirely defeat the purpose of their apologetics. To do so would be to acknowledge the existence of a standard of virtue that God must conform to to be good, a moral law that not even God is above. If there is such an objective standard then Divine Command Theory is in the dumpster -- God even if His commands are perfect is still reduced to the status of a mere messenger. So to justify treating Divine Command Theory differently from Stalin Command Theory, the Christians point elsewhere. They claim Divine Command Theory is different from Stalin Command Theory because Stalin and his commands are merely "natural", whereas God and His commands are "supernatural". On this distinction the analogy between Divine Command Theory and Stalin Command Theory breaks down in their view.

But, as we've seen, supernaturalists have no clue what they mean by "natural" and "supernatural". Those are nothing but content-free labels, which Christians attach to Command Theories they want us to reject and Command Theories they want us to accept. Which is to say, Christian meta-ethics is a vanilla "special pleading" fallacy.

What are nature and supernature to you?

 

[Bomb#20]

... But, as we've seen, supernaturalists have no clue what they mean by "natural" and "supernatural". Those are nothing but content-free labels, which Christians attach to Command Theories they want us to reject and Command Theories they want us to accept. Which is to say, Christian meta-ethics is a vanilla "special pleading" fallacy.

What are nature and supernature to you?

Not sure why it matters to you what they are to me. I'm not the one trying to hang some moral judgment on the distinction; and even if I were, this isn't a "Your top 10 reasons for rejecting Bomb#20's philosophy" thread. But that's okay, you want to know, so here you go.

To me, "nature" is what we go to the wilderness to observe: the part of the world people aren't rearranging to suit ourselves.

"Supernature" is a word I can't recall ever encountering before this thread. I take it you mean it to be a noun form of "supernatural", a putative thing for the adjective "supernatural" to refer to. Which is kind of goofy since "supernatural" itself can also be a noun. If you mean to ask what is "the supernatural" to me, I think the Wikipedia definition I quoted upthread adequately captures common usage: "The supernatural is phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature."

This raises the question of what "the laws of nature" means. As I noted upthread, that's a perfectly sensible concept when it's implicitly relied on in fictional stories about "supernatural" phenomena in imaginary alternative worlds -- the characters in those stories are evidently talking about the laws of the real world: the world their audience lives in. But to talk of phenomena not subject to the laws of nature turns into mushheaded nonsense if one is talking about the phenomena and the laws of one's own world. A phenomenon that goes against some statement about what happens in one's own world is not "not subject to the law"; it's a counterexample proving the statement is not a law.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another way to think about nature is as being all that exists. Even a fictional story exists as a story containing supernatural claims and stories are quite natural.

Supernature would be a religious word used to describe fantastic and fictitious claims about nature that are unscientific and obviously false. Supernature can be thought of as identifying a world of make-believe. If it doesn't actually exist it's supernatural.

 

[Politesse]

Another way to think about nature is as being all that exists. Even a fictional story exists as a story containing supernatural claims and stories are quite natural.

Supernature would be a religious word used to describe fantastic and fictitious claims about nature that are unscientific and obviously false. Supernature can be thought of as identifying a world of make-believe. If it doesn't actually exist it's supernatural.

Ah, how tidy! If you define the supernatural as "that which does not exist", you can then prove that the supernatural does not exist simply by quoting its definition. How convenient! How, um... taut!

We are learning the profound philosophy of atheism tonight.

Points to you for actually suggesting a definition rather than just appealing to the Wikipedia, though, there may be hope for you yet.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another way to think about nature is as being all that exists. Even a fictional story exists as a story containing supernatural claims and stories are quite natural.

Supernature would be a religious word used to describe fantastic and fictitious claims about nature that are unscientific and obviously false. Supernature can be thought of as identifying a world of make-believe. If it doesn't actually exist it's supernatural.

Ah, how tidy! If you define the supernatural as "that which does not exist", you can then prove that the supernatural does not exist simply by quoting its definition. How convenient! How, um... taut!

We are learning the profound philosophy of atheism tonight.

Points to you for actually suggesting a definition rather than just appealing to the Wikipedia, though, there may be hope for you yet.

I appreciate your emotional honesty.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, how tidy! If you define the supernatural as "that which does not exist", you can then prove that the supernatural does not exist simply by quoting its definition. How convenient! How, um... taut!

We are learning the profound philosophy of atheism tonight.

Points to you for actually suggesting a definition rather than just appealing to the Wikipedia, though, there may be hope for you yet.

That appears to be a dig at me. What have you got against appealing to Wikipedia? I presume you'd have the same objection if I appealed to the OED?

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"​

To satisfy your standards for profundity I'm supposed to suggest my own definition, yes? What am I to base such a suggestion on? I could base a suggestion on my own observations of common usage among the supernaturalists I hear. But then I'd just come up with a definition very much like the Wikipedia/OED definitions, so what would be the point of not leaving the job to skilled lexicographers?

Or do you mean I should base it on the role that "nature and supernature" play in my own "philosophy of atheism"? They play no role in it. The Wikipedia entry notes:

the term "supernatural" emerged in the medieval period and did not exist in the ancient world.​

Medieval philosophy was hopelessly contaminated by Christianity. It was driven by the needs of apologetics, not the needs of reason. "The supernatural" summons to mind Nietzsche's remark about thinkers who not only fail to solve a problem but mess up the topic for everyone who comes after them. "He who cannot hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit it at all."

So why did you ask me "What are nature and supernature to you?" Are you trying to reverse burden-of-proof? Are you asking me to do supernaturalists' heavy lifting for them? Are you relieving supernaturalists of their obligation of clarity? Are you inviting me to join you in taking for granted the unsupported premise that these are meaningful concepts?

Or are you, perhaps, suggesting that "naturalism" is on an equal footing with "supernaturalism" because atheism assumes without proof that nature is all that exists? So let me be clear on this: I'm not claiming nature is all that exists; I'm not arguing that supernaturalism is wrong; I'm not arguing that the supernatural does not exist. I'm saying supernaturalism is "not even wrong"; I'm saying "supernatural" as applied to the real world is incoherent content-free gobbledygook. Wolfgang Pauli supposedly said “philosophy is the systematic misuse of a terminology that was invented for just that purpose.”; it seems to me "supernatural" is a prime example of that. Also note that this cuts both ways: all that Richard Carrier stuff about Naturalism as a worldview is likewise "not even wrong".

What are nature and supernature to me? Supernature is nothing to me. Nature to me is having deer in my yard, and going to a national park from time to time.

 

[Politesse]

That appears to be a dig at me. What have you got against appealing to Wikipedia? I presume you'd have the same objection if I appealed to the OED?

You claimed that theists were deficient specifically for lacking a clear understanding of concepts you yourself can't discuss without looking them up in an non-peer reviewed encyclopedia. I reckon your point stands for itself, just not in the way you think. Appealing to the OED, written almost entirely by theists, makes even less sense as a demonstration of your supposed superiority over them.

Nature to me is having deer in my yard, and going to a national park from time to time.

This is especially silly. Like arguing that there isn't enough space in the apartment for the grey couch because "space" is an enormous place filled with stars and planets as everyone knows.

 

[Bomb#20]

That appears to be a dig at me. What have you got against appealing to Wikipedia? I presume you'd have the same objection if I appealed to the OED?

You claimed that theists were deficient specifically for lacking a clear understanding of concepts you yourself can't discuss without looking them up in an non-peer reviewed encyclopedia.

That never happened. It is a figment of your imagination. I claimed theists were deficient specifically for basing their own meta-ethics, "Divine Command Theory", on a concept they lack a clear understanding of. Whether I can discuss those concepts myself to your satisfaction is immaterial, because I am not basing my meta-ethics on them.

I reckon your point stands for itself, just not in the way you think. Appealing to the OED, written almost entirely by theists, makes even less sense as a demonstration of your supposed superiority over them.

And now you have decided to join Jarhyn in proof-by-ad-hominem.

I did not appeal to the OED to "demonstrate my supposed superiority over them". I appealed to it, as you perfectly well know, because you impugned the non-peer-reviewed encyclopedia I appealed to first; and I had appealed to Wikipedia, as you perfectly well know, because you asked me to say what "supernature" was to me. And that is a question you asked me even though there was no logical basis for you to suppose that what "supernature" is to me was relevant to the thread. I answered your question anyway because I am polite -- demonstrably a hell of a lot more polite to you than you are to me. I appealed to those sources in an attempt to satisfy your irrational wish. That's on you. So stop fabricating disreputable motives and attributing them to me.

Nature to me is having deer in my yard, and going to a national park from time to time.

This is especially silly. Like arguing that there isn't enough space in the apartment for the grey couch because "space" is an enormous place filled with stars and planets as everyone knows.

Oh for the love of god. In the sense of "nature" you apparently have in mind, I'd say "Nature is nothing to me", the same as I say "Supernature is nothing to me." What I said was a gentle reminder that "nature" is a pre-existing word that the philosophers who couldn't hit the nail on the head and shouldn't have hit it at all appropriated from common usage, invented a mushheaded meaning they can't explain for, and then pretended was rightfully theirs. And if I'd said "Nature is nothing to me" somebody would no doubt be claiming I'm anti-environment.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Those who say supernature is real need to ante up. I'll go so far as to say it's an idea. If it's applied to gods then we've applied an idea to an idea. Are there any philosophical rules that apply when you combine two ideas, neither of which can be quantified or demonstrated?

 

[atrib]

And now you have decided to join Jarhyn in proof-by-ad-hominem.

Careful, or Jarhyn might imprison you in a simulated universe he created and throw away the su password. He might even put Learner in there with you if he's in a bad mood. And if Palootsti gets access you will be stuck trying to find a peer reviewed description of supernatural forever.

 

[SLD]

Well, this thread has gotten way off base. They all do I suppose. It my primary purpose has been to find ways to counter what I consider the pernicious influence of religion in America, particularly fundamentalist Christianity. I thought about how, given the Court’s decisions we could use them against religion counter the threat from the fundies. Attacking it directly seems the best way. I believe we all like to think we are rational logical people. I reasoned my way out of Christianity. It wasn’t some bad experience in church. So I suppose others will too.

But maybe that’s not everyone’s experience in breaking free of religion.

So I wrote another essay I may try, more along the lines of the founders views and the true ideals of the Enlightenment:

We are a free nation, not a Christian one

One often hears that the United States is a Christian nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The founding fathers were very explicit about this. They even signed a treaty in 1796 with the Bey of Tripoli stating unequivocally, “[T]he United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was signed by Washington and passed unanimously by the Senate.

The founders were of varied religious backgrounds, including atheists (Franklin), Deists (Jefferson), traditional Anglican (Jay), Congregationalists (Adams), Presbyterian (Witherspoon) and even Catholics (Carroll), and wanted to ensure that the religious strife that Europe had experienced in the 17th century and at other times would not come to our shores. Thus they explicitly rejected a foundation of god as the source of government. The Constitution opens with the famous phrase “We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” God or Jesus is not mentioned. This was shocking for its time as Europeans thought that God ordained rulers, not the people. Indeed some in this country objected to the Constitution for this reason.

But this also reflect Jefferson’s ideas in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Again, a radical departure from the idea of rule by any religion.

To further this view, they drafted a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the very first sentence which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Madison, the primary author of this document stated that “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

Madison our fourth President, and probably the key drafter of our Constitution always fought for both religious Liberty and a strict separation of church and state. “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” He opposed any government support of any church, believing strongly that it hurt both the church and state. “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Our Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedom to all, whether Christian or not. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

We are a free nation. And as a free nation, we must keep eternally separate our churches and state as our founding fathers intended.

Maybe I’ll do both Essays as handouts at some Rally around the flag point, or at a post football prayer, or maybe at a city hall meeting.

I really think we should all be doing something like this. It stops them in their tracks and let’s the community know we are out there. They’ll stop all public prayers and invocations if they know they must accommodate us as well. It seems to me that with a court so willing to put up with this shit, it’s the only way to stop it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those who say supernature is real need to ante up. I'll go so far as to say it's an idea. If it's applied to gods then we've applied an idea to an idea. Are there any philosophical rules that apply when you combine two ideas, neither of which can be quantified or demonstrated?

It's nice then that neither I nor Politesse say "supernature is real"

I say "supernature is an idea that is well defined and not nonsense".

It is not even that it may not be demonstrated. It may be. Thankfully I don't cleave to thinking that such chases for geese are warranted.

In many cases, this all rests on the inability of some to realize that if we are discussing the thing we call the universe, all this everything that we see "nature" yet again it devolves to a nonsense concept. Like trying to define "universe" in math, or "unity" in Kabbalah, the idea literally is nonsense.

Unless we take it to mean something else: "1.) the way a system works; 2.) the current configuration of a system's function"

Then, the word "nature" makes all sorts of sense in this usage.

Instead of arguing like idiots on an untenable position like "supernature is not real", we can argue from more useful positions like "supernature has no possible bearing on philosophy".

I absolutely can look at divine command theory from a perspective that makes a depressing amount of sense, to the point where I base my understanding of it on a semantically complete system with a well-defined and mathematical structure operating irrespective of it's implementation, implemented within another deterministic system with an apparently well defined and mathematical structure again operating irrespective of it's implementation.

It does not mean that there is a "supernature" with relation to us, but it does mean there is necessarily supernature with relation to mathematical systems we instantiate: we can't "look up" the chain but we can see if the idea makes sense "looking down".

So that's what I did. I took the concept of "god" and "nature" and I generalized and found there was already a structure of language that discussed the relationship and it's structure as proposed and it is "simulation".

I'm sorry if this offends you, but there it is.

At any rate, without understanding why some folks DO believe in the supernatural, in "simulationism", and without understanding why the basic concept is not in fact nonsense, you will be unable to depopulate the concept of the nonsense that religious folks bring upon it.

When you DO depopulate it of nonsense, you end up pulling people off of Divine Command Theory, and it's Divine Command Theory, the idea that might makes right and ultimate solipsism that we really need to be in the business of dispensing with.

 

[abaddon]

Those who say supernature is real need to ante up. I'll go so far as to say it's an idea. If it's applied to gods then we've applied an idea to an idea. Are there any philosophical rules that apply when you combine two ideas, neither of which can be quantified or demonstrated?

Yes there are.

In a valid argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. So it can just be hollow words yet they're internally consistent.

But a sound argument is much better. It is a valid argument where the premises are demonstrated to be true. So the conclusion that follows is true too, not just syntactically but actually.

So it's not enough to just fit the ideas together and have a "semantically complete system" and for it to seem to "make sense" (for someone who's defined the terms in ways that "make sense" to HIM). To make that make good sense to others, it'll have to be upgraded to a sound argument.

 

[abaddon]

At any rate, without understanding why some folks DO believe in the supernatural, in "simulationism", and without understanding why the basic concept is not in fact nonsense, you will be unable to depopulate the concept of the nonsense that religious folks bring upon it.

When you DO depopulate it of nonsense, you end up pulling people off of Divine Command Theory, and it's Divine Command Theory, the idea that might makes right and ultimate solipsism that we really need to be in the business of dispensing with.

Talk of simulations is more useful to people seeking transcendence of immanent reality and so isn't a great basis for arguing against the sort of religiosity where folk wish there was a transcendent being.

Telling them the transcendent being is a shitty person won't matter. No more than Trump being a shitty person mattered.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those who say supernature is real need to ante up. I'll go so far as to say it's an idea. If it's applied to gods then we've applied an idea to an idea. Are there any philosophical rules that apply when you combine two ideas, neither of which can be quantified or demonstrated?

Yes there are.

In a valid argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. So it can just be hollow words yet they're internally consistent.

But a sound argument is much better. It's is a valid argument where the premises are demonstrated to be true. So the conclusion that follows is true too, not just syntactically but actually.

So it's not enough to just fit the ideas together and have a "semantically complete system" and for it to seem to "make sense" (for someone who's defined the terms in ways that "make sense" to HIM). To make that make sense to others, it'll have to be upgraded to a sound argument.

And the point is that it has been shown to be sound. Super- and Sub- are concepts of systemic containerization.

One can demonstrate a perfectly sound argument for the universal sensibility of it if they can demonstrate that "sub-nature" exists as a concept, a mathematically isolated system operating independent of it's implementation (or multiply implemented independently in different instantiations). If such is provided, and I already think it has, then we have already done so for supernature, because the derivative existing proves out the concept of the integral to that derivative.

Talk of simulations is more useful to people seeking transcendence of immanent reality and so isn't a great basis for arguing against the sort of religiosity where folk wish there was a transcendent being.

Now THIS is more to the point. One cannot argue someone down from wanting to have a fascist overlord.

I imagine the only thing in the end which will dissuade such people are bullets, or the threat of catching bullets should they try to install one.

As a result they have to fall back on such wank fantasies to install one to the supernatural.

But even if it can be proven that gods can be imperfect assholes, it can also be proven that even those imperfect assholes have standards and reasons which preclude the selection of fascist-bots.

 

[Bomb#20]

But a sound argument is much better. It's is a valid argument where the premises are demonstrated to be true. So the conclusion that follows is true too, not just syntactically but actually.

And the point is that it has been shown to be sound. Super- and Sub- are concepts of systemic containerization.

One can demonstrate a perfectly sound argument for the universal sensibility of it if they can demonstrate that "sub-nature" exists as a concept, a mathematically isolated system operating independent of it's implementation (or multiply implemented independently in different instantiations). If such is provided, and I already think it has...

Mathematically isolated, my ass.

"Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration.

I did the same thing a couple times with an overpopulation of cats, and then also with a couple of dwarves..."​

https://iidb.org/threads/your-top-10-reasons-for-rejecting-christianity.26279/#post-1024485

 

[Jarhyn]

But a sound argument is much better. It's is a valid argument where the premises are demonstrated to be true. So the conclusion that follows is true too, not just syntactically but actually.

And the point is that it has been shown to be sound. Super- and Sub- are concepts of systemic containerization.

One can demonstrate a perfectly sound argument for the universal sensibility of it if they can demonstrate that "sub-nature" exists as a concept, a mathematically isolated system operating independent of it's implementation (or multiply implemented independently in different instantiations). If such is provided, and I already think it has...

Mathematically isolated, my ass.

"Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration.​

​

I did the same thing a couple times with an overpopulation of cats, and then also with a couple of dwarves..."​

https://iidb.org/threads/your-top-10-reasons-for-rejecting-christianity.26279/#post-1024485

So, I notice you didn't offer an argument other than your ass. Is the argument in your ass? Is it that you just have to pull it out?

Then you quoted something unrelated to whether some particular system is mathematically isolated -- whether a different system is truly a Scotsman isolated -- which it is on account of the fact that the same system may exist on your hard drive, instantiated on your CPU from some assumption of initial conditions.

All you have to do is enter the same initial conditions on that deterministic system.

You can implement this mathematically isolated system on different machines using different sequences of operations.

You could change all the tokens to new words and it would be all the same thing (though much harder to interact lacking a known analogical framework) assuming the same mathematical structure of the raws.

Of course part of the initial conditions for certain superdeterministic implementations involve some rather suspicious looking events happening at suspicious moments, like how a certain door happened to be locked.

Part of that initial condition is "this bit at this moment of this frame switches from whatever it is to 1".

Still, the example holds as this is a deterministic and mathematically isolated system, even for the weird event just happening out of the blue.

In the thought experiment, after all, these things occasionally just happen such that a 'door' is, as a function of the deterministic and isolated math that defines the chaotic results of the system, flipped in it's state from unlocked to locked for some finite period on the order of a 'week'.

 

[Bomb#20]

And the point is that it has been shown to be sound. Super- and Sub- are concepts of systemic containerization.

One can demonstrate a perfectly sound argument for the universal sensibility of it if they can demonstrate that "sub-nature" exists as a concept, a mathematically isolated system operating independent of it's implementation (or multiply implemented independently in different instantiations). If such is provided, and I already think it has...

Mathematically isolated, my ass.

"Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration.​

​

I did the same thing a couple times with an overpopulation of cats, and then also with a couple of dwarves..."​

https://iidb.org/threads/your-top-10-reasons-for-rejecting-christianity.26279/#post-1024485

So, I notice you didn't offer an argument other than your ass. Is the argument in your ass? Is it that you just have to pull it out?

Then you quoted something unrelated to whether some particular system is mathematically isolated

Do you find it fun to play-act at being obtuse? Quoting you recounting your system's failure to be mathematically isolated was the argument, as I'm confident you were already aware.

-- whether a different system is truly a Scotsman isolated

You call it "a different system". Was that not the system you were talking about? If not, what mathematically isolated system operating independent of it's implementation did you have in mind when you said you think it has already been provided?

-- which it is on account of the fact that the same system may exist on your hard drive, instantiated on your CPU from some assumption of initial conditions.

All you have to do is enter the same initial conditions on that deterministic system.

You can implement this mathematically isolated system on different machines using different sequences of operations.

You could change all the tokens to new words and it would be all the same thing (though much harder to interact lacking a known analogical framework) assuming the same mathematical structure of the raws.

How do you figure that's "the same system"? The system on my drive won't have you in it deciding kids are too cpu-intensive and cats are overpopulated, so what causes the corresponding entities on my drive to get crushed under a corresponding drawbridge?

Of course part of the initial conditions for certain superdeterministic implementations involve some rather suspicious looking events happening at suspicious moments, like how a certain door happened to be locked.

Part of that initial condition is "this bit at this moment of this frame switches from whatever it is to 1".

Still, the example holds as this is a deterministic and mathematically isolated system, even for the weird event just happening out of the blue.

In the thought experiment, after all, these things occasionally just happen such that a 'door' is, as a function of the deterministic and isolated math that defines the chaotic results of the system, flipped in it's state from unlocked to locked for some finite period on the order of a 'week'.

Is that your answer to the above question -- on my hard drive there's a list of weird events happening out of the blue such as drawbridges popping open at particular times, preprogrammed in the initial conditions? Then how do you figure that's "the same system"? In your run there was no such list. You say "All you have to do is enter the same initial conditions on that deterministic system."; but my hard drive and your hard drive had different initial conditions.