This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Meganerdbomb
2841
« on: May 05, 2011, 07:49:43 PM »
That's just sh**-tier anime, some of it is actually good and has better drawing and animation than that.
I don't even know if that picture is from a particular anime, but maybe Scourge does...
2842
« on: May 05, 2011, 03:41:44 AM »
Ski free was the sh**!
2843
« on: May 01, 2011, 03:17:18 PM »
Ponies on the front page of course!
We don't need them taking over the front page as well, matey 
You are wrong. That is EXACTLY what we need. 
2844
« on: May 01, 2011, 03:04:36 PM »
FFFFFFFF- My bot was a whole 7 votes away.
To be honest, I knew 6 would win from the start.
16 - 12 = 4
2845
« on: May 01, 2011, 01:08:01 PM »
(honestly if a new way of combining Glitches isnt great, I dont know what is?)
Ponies on the front page of course! But seriously, I respect your building prowess and all that. Your bot was the most innovative.
2846
« on: April 30, 2011, 11:46:36 PM »
Man that's BS. That bot isn't even that great. Sonic Rainboom should have won! 
2847
« on: April 30, 2011, 08:42:40 PM »
BEST. AV. EVER.
If you say so, Nate 
Darn right.
I'm glad you like it! 
2848
« on: April 30, 2011, 07:06:11 PM »
the universe is an experiment in the basement of some mad scientist
-quantum physics
Pretty much this.
2849
« on: April 30, 2011, 02:40:49 AM »
Can you guys try to find bad youtube videos for me to riff on? I can't find any really bad ones.
Trolling on youtube is lame and unfunny, but if you really want to, go riff on a GOOD video by listing a few bullsh** reasons for why it's crap. Make certain to sound as pretentious as possible while doing so. As a variation find a video of a video game playthrough or movie scene and give reason for why the game or movie sucked.
2850
« on: April 30, 2011, 02:32:14 AM »
I sure the swords have something to do with it being bad against HS's, but I see why you're using them. I like it!
2851
« on: April 29, 2011, 11:15:47 PM »
Meh, servo boosting has been done before, it's nothing special.
2852
« on: April 29, 2011, 05:59:25 PM »
Proud agnostic atheist here.
1-By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2-A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
Alright, so answer me this, you filthy sophist.
1-If God is "a thing that which none greater can be imagined", then how can he fit in the universe, being greater than anything else
existing ? As we can imagine the universe ?
>Implying God has to exist within the confines of this universe. It would be utterly illogical to even think such a thing. 2-How is the probability of a thing existing directly linked to it's greatness or not ?
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...
"Nothing exists in the mind as an idea, therefore, nothing exists in reality".
Obviously this is false. Therefore, I have enough of one counter-example to trash your theory.
You aren't following the logic. Something that exists is intrinsically greater than that which does not because it possesses an important property that the other lacks, namely existence. Thus, if there is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived it exists necessarily. Your counter argument does not hold because existence is not a necessary property of everything, only that which is greatest.
2853
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:43:36 PM »
Better? Pinkie Pie is way too mainstream anyway.
2854
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:26:36 PM »
Well, that's my fault for not saying both yes and no in the first place, but yeah I think this has gone about as far as it's gonna go. The ontological argument isn't the type of thing that will actually convince anyone, but I like it because it's rather difficult to disprove, even though it feels like a total cop-out. Attacking the first premise is really the only way to dispute it, as you figured, but even then, all your saying is that it's wrong because you aren't smart enough to get it. Also Pinkie Pie is not both at once, she's all at once, but only if she wants to be, which makes her both god and not god AND cupcakes. 
2855
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:16:37 PM »
I hate anything that's popular. All the stuff I like is pretty obscure. I'm sure you've never heard of it. 
2856
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:11:34 PM »
Yet, I answered all of them. It's easy when you use troll logic. 
2857
« on: April 28, 2011, 09:59:23 PM »
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
Not true. I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.
So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".
No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite. It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it. Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God. Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.
I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time. Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.
I'm actually somewhat offended that you would think so little of me as to assume I'm just copy-pasting Wikipedia. The only thing I've copied and pasted so far was the original form of the ontological argument. The rest is my own brilliance (and stuff I learned in Philosophy 101). You underestimate me considerably. Also, just because you can't comprehend infinity does not mean the concept does not exist. As you said, we do math with it. You cannot completely conceive of such a being, but you can still grasp the concept of such a being. The answer to your questions are: Yes Yes Yes Yes (in fact, ONLY an omnipotent god COULD create a being with free will) Yes Otherwise, it wouldn't be God. There is no contradiction because this being's infinite power transcends your finite logic.  I told you this was the ultimate troll argument.
2858
« on: April 28, 2011, 09:29:48 PM »
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
The first argument is only true "by definition"
And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.
There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process.
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid. In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
The first argument is only true "by definition"
And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.
There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process.
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
he beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition;
I disagree. The definition of the word "greater" throws away the objectivity of the argument (what is greater to one person might not be greater to others.) And I would love for them to show where God is defined as the greatest thing imaginable.
Interestingly enough, this is the reason one of the counter arguments to this fails. The statement holds true for the greatest conceivable being because you cannot imaging a being that is greater than Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent, since you cannot be more than all-powerful, or have more knowledge than all knowledge. Thus, a being that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, AND that exists. Is the greatest being that can be imagined. If you can imagine one greater let me know.
2859
« on: April 28, 2011, 08:16:00 PM »
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless. The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction. If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
2860
« on: April 28, 2011, 02:23:27 AM »
I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
That's why it's such a great troll argument. To be fair though, it actually only assumes that the CONCEPT of god (as the greatest possible being) exists.
|
Show Posts