Upload
Login or register

cleverguy

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/02/2011
Last Login:9/30/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#17575
Highest Content Rank:#1565
Highest Comment Rank:#1060
Content Thumbs: 6336 total,  7428 ,  1092
Comment Thumbs: 5595 total,  7776 ,  2181
Content Level Progress: 23% (23/100)
Level 163 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 164 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 40% (40/100)
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:6
Content Views:197559
Times Content Favorited:475 times
Total Comments Made:7428
FJ Points:3130
Favorite Tags: for (12) | Reading (12) | the (12) | tags (11) | thank (11) | You (11) | a (6) | i (4) | dont (3) | im (3) | this (3) | his (2) | is (2) | its (2) | joke (2) | me (2)

Text Posts

  • Views: 67211
    Thumbs Up 3522 Thumbs Down 293 Total: +3229
    Comments: 594
    Favorites: 380
    Uploaded: 08/07/12
    Feminists Again Feminists Again
  • Views: 26699
    Thumbs Up 803 Thumbs Down 65 Total: +738
    Comments: 50
    Favorites: 16
    Uploaded: 11/19/12
    Bassists Bassists
  • Views: 14978
    Thumbs Up 379 Thumbs Down 63 Total: +316
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 21
    Uploaded: 09/23/12
    Anticscomic Anticscomic
  • Views: 2102
    Thumbs Up 65 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +60
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 07/20/11
    The Cleveland Show The Cleveland Show
  • Views: 2007
    Thumbs Up 44 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +39
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/30/11
    Stepladder Stepladder
  • Views: 3484
    Thumbs Up 31 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +25
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 08/05/11
    Nigel Thornberry Comp Nigel Thornberry Comp
First2[ 12 ]
  • Views: 1763
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +16
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 03/29/14
    Oh So Close Oh So Close
First2[ 12 ]

latest user's comments

#18 - love your art style 09/23/2016 on Halp +5
#147631 - could you explain what the difference between epistemic and me…  [+] (1 reply) 09/16/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147642 - zlane (09/16/2016) [-]
basically the distinction is between the way something could conceivably be vs. the way something could really be. the two aren't necessarily coextensive because our metaphysical intuitions are not a perfect map of reality and actual possibility

i don't think it's enough to say that, for all we know, X might be a real possibility (because we can't conclusively prove that it impossible) therefore Y. it's just too loose of a proposition to draw any conclusion from

Krike distinguishes the two by defining metaphysical possibility as "maximally complete properties that the universe could have instantiated. " and epistemic possibility as "possible world-states (that) are maximally complete ways the universe can coherently be conceived to be"
#147528 - the circular argument that you present is not my argument beca…  [+] (3 replies) 09/14/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147531 - zlane (09/15/2016) [-]
what i'm saying is that this God-free world might be epistemically possible, but this alone doesn't demonstrate that it's metaphysically possible. i think you have to provide additional support for your premise.

and btw, i know this goes both ways. when i used the modal ontological argument in the past i used to say something along the lines of "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, then you have to accept premise 1". now i recognize the problem with that
User avatar
#147631 - cleverguy (09/16/2016) [-]
could you explain what the difference between epistemic and metaphysical possibility in the context of this argument? im not too versed on it
User avatar
#147642 - zlane (09/16/2016) [-]
basically the distinction is between the way something could conceivably be vs. the way something could really be. the two aren't necessarily coextensive because our metaphysical intuitions are not a perfect map of reality and actual possibility

i don't think it's enough to say that, for all we know, X might be a real possibility (because we can't conclusively prove that it impossible) therefore Y. it's just too loose of a proposition to draw any conclusion from

Krike distinguishes the two by defining metaphysical possibility as "maximally complete properties that the universe could have instantiated. " and epistemic possibility as "possible world-states (that) are maximally complete ways the universe can coherently be conceived to be"
#147427 - yes  [+] (7 replies) 09/13/2016 on Religion Board 0
#147428 - zlane has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#147430 - zlane (09/13/2016) [-]
that wasn't worded right. let me try again

what i'm getting at is that to establish the existence of a possible world in which God does not exist, you need something beyond epistemic possibility, because saying that a possible world exists because it possibly exists is circular
User avatar
#147502 - zlane (09/14/2016) [-]
skipping ahead a little bit, i think this discussion boils down to whether the proposition 'there exists a possible world in which there is no God" is more plausible than the converse

i don't think that admitting it's possible that God does not exist implies that there is, in fact, a possible world in which God does not exist; it means that this world is possible. we're talking about two levels of possibility here: epistemic and metaphysical. if you could provide strong metaphysical support for the aforementioned proposition, and demonstrate that it is more plausible than the competing claim(God possibly exists) then you'd have a very powerful argument against God
User avatar
#147528 - cleverguy (09/14/2016) [-]
the circular argument that you present is not my argument because the conclusion of my argument is that a possible world without God makes God unnecessary and thus nonexistent. you would have to show that it is possible for this world to exist for sure, and by the very nature of God's logic-defying traits, any world without God that you can prove to be logically possible would be more plausible than one with God
User avatar
#147531 - zlane (09/15/2016) [-]
what i'm saying is that this God-free world might be epistemically possible, but this alone doesn't demonstrate that it's metaphysically possible. i think you have to provide additional support for your premise.

and btw, i know this goes both ways. when i used the modal ontological argument in the past i used to say something along the lines of "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, then you have to accept premise 1". now i recognize the problem with that
User avatar
#147631 - cleverguy (09/16/2016) [-]
could you explain what the difference between epistemic and metaphysical possibility in the context of this argument? im not too versed on it
User avatar
#147642 - zlane (09/16/2016) [-]
basically the distinction is between the way something could conceivably be vs. the way something could really be. the two aren't necessarily coextensive because our metaphysical intuitions are not a perfect map of reality and actual possibility

i don't think it's enough to say that, for all we know, X might be a real possibility (because we can't conclusively prove that it impossible) therefore Y. it's just too loose of a proposition to draw any conclusion from

Krike distinguishes the two by defining metaphysical possibility as "maximally complete properties that the universe could have instantiated. " and epistemic possibility as "possible world-states (that) are maximally complete ways the universe can coherently be conceived to be"
#147426 - if there are no persuasive reasons, then why don't you think G…  [+] (1 reply) 09/13/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147431 - cognosceteipsum (09/13/2016) [-]
Something happened and I'm very tired. I might not respond. I can't open my brain
#147423 - because if a logically possible explanation exists, that means…  [+] (9 replies) 09/13/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147425 - zlane (09/13/2016) [-]
you're alluding to God being defined as a necessary being-- a being that must exist in every possible world, right? like a turnaround of the ontological argument?
User avatar
#147427 - cleverguy (09/13/2016) [-]
yes
#147428 - zlane has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#147430 - zlane (09/13/2016) [-]
that wasn't worded right. let me try again

what i'm getting at is that to establish the existence of a possible world in which God does not exist, you need something beyond epistemic possibility, because saying that a possible world exists because it possibly exists is circular
User avatar
#147502 - zlane (09/14/2016) [-]
skipping ahead a little bit, i think this discussion boils down to whether the proposition 'there exists a possible world in which there is no God" is more plausible than the converse

i don't think that admitting it's possible that God does not exist implies that there is, in fact, a possible world in which God does not exist; it means that this world is possible. we're talking about two levels of possibility here: epistemic and metaphysical. if you could provide strong metaphysical support for the aforementioned proposition, and demonstrate that it is more plausible than the competing claim(God possibly exists) then you'd have a very powerful argument against God
User avatar
#147528 - cleverguy (09/14/2016) [-]
the circular argument that you present is not my argument because the conclusion of my argument is that a possible world without God makes God unnecessary and thus nonexistent. you would have to show that it is possible for this world to exist for sure, and by the very nature of God's logic-defying traits, any world without God that you can prove to be logically possible would be more plausible than one with God
User avatar
#147531 - zlane (09/15/2016) [-]
what i'm saying is that this God-free world might be epistemically possible, but this alone doesn't demonstrate that it's metaphysically possible. i think you have to provide additional support for your premise.

and btw, i know this goes both ways. when i used the modal ontological argument in the past i used to say something along the lines of "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, then you have to accept premise 1". now i recognize the problem with that
User avatar
#147631 - cleverguy (09/16/2016) [-]
could you explain what the difference between epistemic and metaphysical possibility in the context of this argument? im not too versed on it
User avatar
#147642 - zlane (09/16/2016) [-]
basically the distinction is between the way something could conceivably be vs. the way something could really be. the two aren't necessarily coextensive because our metaphysical intuitions are not a perfect map of reality and actual possibility

i don't think it's enough to say that, for all we know, X might be a real possibility (because we can't conclusively prove that it impossible) therefore Y. it's just too loose of a proposition to draw any conclusion from

Krike distinguishes the two by defining metaphysical possibility as "maximally complete properties that the universe could have instantiated. " and epistemic possibility as "possible world-states (that) are maximally complete ways the universe can coherently be conceived to be"
#147382 - y tho  [+] (3 replies) 09/13/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147424 - cognosceteipsum (09/13/2016) [-]
No persuasive reasons
User avatar
#147426 - cleverguy (09/13/2016) [-]
if there are no persuasive reasons, then why don't you think God is necessary?

and if you don't think God is necessary, how is God still your best explanation?
User avatar
#147431 - cognosceteipsum (09/13/2016) [-]
Something happened and I'm very tired. I might not respond. I can't open my brain
#147381 - i would sorta disagree with that last part since as long as an…  [+] (11 replies) 09/13/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147421 - zlane (09/13/2016) [-]
i believe that God is in fact necessary to explain the aforementioned stuff, but i can't really prove that every alternative explanation is logically impossible, which is what i would have to do to prove the necessity of God as an explanation. the most i can do is try to show that the other explanations are less likely to be true.

i'm not seeing why any other explanation would necessarily be more plausible by default?
User avatar
#147423 - cleverguy (09/13/2016) [-]
because if a logically possible explanation exists, that means God is not necessary, which makes the God explanation, as i think we're defining it, impossible.

For God to be the answer, God must be necessary, if it is logically possible that he is not necessary, then it follows that God is not, in fact, necessary
User avatar
#147425 - zlane (09/13/2016) [-]
you're alluding to God being defined as a necessary being-- a being that must exist in every possible world, right? like a turnaround of the ontological argument?
User avatar
#147427 - cleverguy (09/13/2016) [-]
yes
#147428 - zlane has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#147430 - zlane (09/13/2016) [-]
that wasn't worded right. let me try again

what i'm getting at is that to establish the existence of a possible world in which God does not exist, you need something beyond epistemic possibility, because saying that a possible world exists because it possibly exists is circular
User avatar
#147502 - zlane (09/14/2016) [-]
skipping ahead a little bit, i think this discussion boils down to whether the proposition 'there exists a possible world in which there is no God" is more plausible than the converse

i don't think that admitting it's possible that God does not exist implies that there is, in fact, a possible world in which God does not exist; it means that this world is possible. we're talking about two levels of possibility here: epistemic and metaphysical. if you could provide strong metaphysical support for the aforementioned proposition, and demonstrate that it is more plausible than the competing claim(God possibly exists) then you'd have a very powerful argument against God
User avatar
#147528 - cleverguy (09/14/2016) [-]
the circular argument that you present is not my argument because the conclusion of my argument is that a possible world without God makes God unnecessary and thus nonexistent. you would have to show that it is possible for this world to exist for sure, and by the very nature of God's logic-defying traits, any world without God that you can prove to be logically possible would be more plausible than one with God
User avatar
#147531 - zlane (09/15/2016) [-]
what i'm saying is that this God-free world might be epistemically possible, but this alone doesn't demonstrate that it's metaphysically possible. i think you have to provide additional support for your premise.

and btw, i know this goes both ways. when i used the modal ontological argument in the past i used to say something along the lines of "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, then you have to accept premise 1". now i recognize the problem with that
User avatar
#147631 - cleverguy (09/16/2016) [-]
could you explain what the difference between epistemic and metaphysical possibility in the context of this argument? im not too versed on it
User avatar
#147642 - zlane (09/16/2016) [-]
basically the distinction is between the way something could conceivably be vs. the way something could really be. the two aren't necessarily coextensive because our metaphysical intuitions are not a perfect map of reality and actual possibility

i don't think it's enough to say that, for all we know, X might be a real possibility (because we can't conclusively prove that it impossible) therefore Y. it's just too loose of a proposition to draw any conclusion from

Krike distinguishes the two by defining metaphysical possibility as "maximally complete properties that the universe could have instantiated. " and epistemic possibility as "possible world-states (that) are maximally complete ways the universe can coherently be conceived to be"
#147109 - i can understand that since there being nothing after death is…  [+] (2 replies) 09/10/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#147115 - dehumanizer (09/10/2016) [-]
>terrifying
>not pleasant

i want the normies to leave
User avatar
#147110 - whoozy (09/10/2016) [-]
It is sometimes
Other times I look at the world and just want to laugh about how how we try to make sense of it