Where was God on 9/11?

Originally posted by inimalist
*point of clarification

If what you were saying, Shaky, was the same thing I put, I can't even begin to imagine what you and Bardock are arguing over.

You agree that asking the metaphysical "why" is unanswerable due to it not even being a real question, and clearly so does Bardock...

Unless I am missing something... Is Bardock saying that the causal "why" is the same as the metaphysical "why"?

No, he said my answer to the metaphysical "why" was incomplete. I then pointed out that it doesn't matter. I think he was getting the two, causal "why" and the metaphysical "why" confused.

BTW the causal "why" is really a "how", do you agree?

Originally posted by inimalist
*point of clarification

If what you were saying, Shaky, was the same thing I put, I can't even begin to imagine what you and Bardock are arguing over.

You agree that asking the metaphysical "why" is unanswerable due to it not even being a real question, and clearly so does Bardock...

Unless I am missing something... Is Bardock saying that the causal "why" is the same as the metaphysical "why"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Come on, just read it again, you can see exactly what the problem is. It is that Shakyamunison is dumb and wants to appear smart and philosophical. Really, just read it, it's obvious.

😆 You need help!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 You need help!

If we recall what you initially said: "But a simpler answer to "we are here" is we are here." (which, as desperately as you are trying to make it out to be what inimalist is supporting, is not what inimalist is supporting)

That's the whole basis of our argument. I told you that is not a sufficient answer. And that is true. Just admit you are an idiot and we can get on with our lives.

[edit]For inimalist: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=474187&pagenumber=12 read it from here again and if you still think Shakya makes a wise point, is not an idiot, did not misunderstand what I said or agreed with what you are proposing now, I will apologize and leave him alone, I might be wrong then, but I am pretty sure, he is the moron of the story.

To be honest, no, I didn't think Shaky was saying what I was, but he agreed with me. I'm not in the business of playing "gotcha", if he agrees, I'm going to assume he is a big man and knows what he is agreeing to.

That being said, we are not here just because we are here. I would never support something so ambiguous, and I feel I made that clear.

Is the causal "why" really "how"? My gut instinct is to say no and that language is imprecise. Why seems to indicate some reason, even when used for causes. It seems more to look for motivation than for a more materialistic "how". For instance, I believe "why" is more appropriately used for asking about human action whereas "how" deals with non-living mechanistic processes. But ya, even that is a blurry line, and thus the imprecise nature of language.

As for all the other stuff, I'll let you guys continue to measure penises. maybe ill say this; petty bickering doesn't make anyone look like a raging intellectual. But it is fun...

Originally posted by inimalist

That being said, we are not here just because we are here. I would never support something so ambiguous, and I feel I made that clear.

Not only is it ambiguous, it avoids the question completely. It's like when you ask someone a why-question and they say "Just because".

Originally posted by inimalist
...Is the causal "why" really "how"? My gut instinct is to say no and that language is imprecise. Why seems to indicate some reason, even when used for causes. It seems more to look for motivation than for a more materialistic "how". For instance, I believe "why" is more appropriately used for asking about human action whereas "how" deals with non-living mechanistic processes. But ya, even that is a blurry line, and thus the imprecise nature of language...

Well, we disagree on this topic. I do believe that there is a level of reality that is, only because it is that way.

The reason I use "how" instead of "why" is because I believe that at some point there is no "why".

If Bardock42 doesn't believe the way I do, then that is fine, but to insult someone because of how they believe is just wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If Bardock42 doesn't believe the way I do, then that is fine, but to insult someone because of how they believe is just wrong.

So true, then again Bardock is a troll.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, we disagree on this topic. I do believe that there is a level of reality that is, only because it is that way.

The reason I use "how" instead of "why" is because I believe that at some point there is no "why".

If Bardock42 doesn't believe the way I do, then that is fine, but to insult someone because of how they believe is just wrong.

Than again you find insulting to be disqualifying no matter what facts and evidence say.

And Shakya "How did we get here"?

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
So true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it is not. If what someone believes is stupid, illogical, one dimensional, naive or even harmful then insulting them is not wrong.

Than again you find insulting to be disqualifying no matter what facts and evidence say.

And Shakya "How did we get here"?

According to the rules, you cannot make a personal attack on someone.

Courtesy
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

I do not know why you have not been permanently banned.

"And Shakya "How did we get here"?"

I came from my mother.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
According to the rules, you cannot make a personal attack on someone.

Courtesy
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

I do not know why you have not been permanently banned.

"And Shakya "How did we get here"?"

I came from my mother.

How did she get here? At some point...can you not answer "How" questions anymore?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not only is it ambiguous, it avoids the question completely. It's like when you ask someone a why-question and they say "Just because".

indeed. Its quite anti-climactic as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, we disagree on this topic. I do believe that there is a level of reality that is, only because it is that way.

The reason I use "how" instead of "why" is because I believe that at some point there is no "why".

If Bardock42 doesn't believe the way I do, then that is fine, but to insult someone because of how they believe is just wrong.

ok, my disagreement with that is: At no point is there ever a why. To me, it is not that there is a point where "why" stops being relevant in the explanation of physical phenomena, but in fact that to ask "why" is to create a semantically incorrect question. Why, imho, supposes motivation or some type of choice or agency.

Strange I have never had these troubles with Bardock... How many people does it take to argue? 😛

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
So true, then again Bardock is a troll.

lol

insulting people is wrong, but then again, (insert insult)

Originally posted by Bardock42
How did she get here? At some point...can you not answer "How" questions anymore?

At some point, ~13.5 billion years ago, all reality was a singularity. No question can be asked about before this point because it is unknowable. Human speculation can venture further, but often this only leads to delusion and suffering.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At some point, ~13.5 billion years ago, all reality was a singularity. No question can be asked about before this point because it is unknowable. Human speculation can venture further, but often this only leads to delusion and suffering.

What is wrong with correct usage of language?

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed. Its quite anti-climactic as well.

ok, my disagreement with that is: At no point is there ever a why. To me, it is not that there is a point where "why" stops being relevant in the explanation of physical phenomena, but in fact that to ask "why" is to create a semantically incorrect question. Why, imho, supposes motivation or some type of choice or agency.

This is where it sounds like you are agreeing with me. So, I am confused about the disagreement. It all may have to do with semantics.

Originally posted by inimalist
Strange I have never had these troubles with Bardock... How many people does it take to argue? 😛

The real argument is rather it is right to insult people. I say that it is wrong, and Bardock says it is ok.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

insulting people is wrong, but then again, (insert insult)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure. So why are you biased against why and not how even though they have equal flaws?

What is wrong about correct usage of language?

In general, when a Christian says "why", in this context, he/she really means "God". That is how this all started. I was talking to someone who was saying the Earth could only be perfect for life because God made it that way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In general, when a Christian says "why", in this context, he/she really means "God". That is how this all started. I was talking to someone who was saying the Earth could only be perfect for life because God made it that way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you were talking to me. And you were talking to xyz (an atheist). So that's a lie. What we were discussing was fully secular. On top of it it was explained and defined by me, so your case of that goes right out the window.

I was talking to King of Blades about chance (pg. 11). But he was gone by then, being that it was a few days later. I think you misunderstood my intent.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was talking to King of Blades about chance (pg. 11).