Moses de la Montagne wrote::this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

It says a lot about the case for god belief that the only way to construct a rational defense of it is for years on end to study archaic philosophical gibberish of no use or value for anything else*. And this is generously assuming for the sake of argument that the defense of god belief offered by the likes of Mick is a rational one.

* And I have tried asking Mick multiple times now, about some of his more obscure philosophical notions surrounding things such as "forms"(and what he can do with it and what it can teach us, if anything at all), "immaterial efficient causes", "essentially ordered" and "intermediate causes" and so on, apparently in vain.

From the outside it all smells like the deliberate cherrypicking of a collection of philosophical notions with the specific goal of constructing a philosophical system for apologetic purposes alone. There's nothing that lends any credence to taking on the foundational premises of Mick's philosophy, it was all constructed with the explicit goal of providing a means to do christian apologetics.
Teams of theologicans and apologists have been scouring the philosophy books of history looking for barely compatible notions and definitions with the explicit goal of constructing some obscure case for the christian god. And still, the best they could come up with was some ludicrous horsehit about "pure actuality" preventing the entirety of existence from suddenly disappearing.

How utterly, utterly laughable and transparent.

To anyone who isn't already deeply psychologically and emotionally convinced that their pet mythology is true, it is laughably ineffective and unconvincing. People see right through it. No, you can't argue god into existence with archaic philosophical definitions.

Blah blah. Debate me. Quit your inflated baloney and debate me.

Mick wrote:

Moses de la Montagne wrote::this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.

Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Moses de la Montagne wrote::this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.

Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."

You spend so much time answering posts like these, and so little answering substantive questions that actually probe your philosophy and it's foundations. Why is that, Mick?

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

It says a lot about the case for god belief that the only way to construct a rational defense of it is for years on end to study archaic philosophical gibberish of no use or value for anything else*. And this is generously assuming for the sake of argument that the defense of god belief offered by the likes of Mick is a rational one.

* And I have tried asking Mick multiple times now, about some of his more obscure philosophical notions surrounding things such as "forms"(and what he can do with it and what it can teach us, if anything at all), "immaterial efficient causes", "essentially ordered" and "intermediate causes" and so on, apparently in vain.

From the outside it all smells like the deliberate cherrypicking of a collection of philosophical notions with the specific goal of constructing a philosophical system for apologetic purposes alone. There's nothing that lends any credence to taking on the foundational premises of Mick's philosophy, it was all constructed with the explicit goal of providing a means to do christian apologetics.
Teams of theologicans and apologists have been scouring the philosophy books of history looking for barely compatible notions and definitions with the explicit goal of constructing some obscure case for the christian god. And still, the best they could come up with was some ludicrous horsehit about "pure actuality" preventing the entirety of existence from suddenly disappearing.

How utterly, utterly laughable and transparent.

To anyone who isn't already deeply psychologically and emotionally convinced that their pet mythology is true, it is laughably ineffective and unconvincing. People see right through it. No, you can't argue god into existence with archaic philosophical definitions.

Blah blah. Debate me. Quit your inflated baloney and debate me.

We're having a debate right now in the other thread, why do you have such a hard time answering questions?

By the way, I have already suggested debate topics, but you're afraid to shoulder your burden of proof.

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.

What you wanna do is sit back and poke holes. That is absurdly easy. It is harder to defend Something. You don't win chess by not making a move.

Mick wrote:

Moses de la Montagne wrote:I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.

Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."

Tertullian wrote:Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,” and “unprofitable questions,” and “words which spread like a cancer?” From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.” He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our primary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.

When you want to debate something substantial, and actually take a stand on an issue, let me know.

Mick wrote:It is kinda gross!

Mick wrote:Well, presuming that it is a real thing, it is a composite of form and matter. I can't say much about finality, since i haven't made any observations about its behavior.

Mick wrote:My analysis would be just like yours except more robust and not limited to mechanics. My philosophy would aim to explain how it is that it has any properties, why it sustains its properties Rather than not, etc..

Mick wrote:I can't say much, since I have not got a clue what it is.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.

When you want to debate something substantial, and actually take a stand on an issue, let me know.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Scar wrote:

History tells us that no, you can't.

Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it.

Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

Mick wrote:He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it.

Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

No we cannot.
Unless you can provide a personal statement from lobawad that he quit because he couldn't win.
Otherwise you're just disengenuously insinuating, though that would be par for the course.

Mick wrote:He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.

Except that he didn't. He couldn't finish it.
Also, as a supposed philsopher, you should know that winning a debate =/= being right/correct about your position.

We can see by evaluating Greek and Russian orthodox theologies that not everyone assumed the literalness of these passages.