AX: The anthropic principle and the meaning of life. page 2 (locked)

31 posts

Flag Post

What others were trying to point out is, with your set of axioms, the conclusion you reach is the basically the only reasonable one. This leaves little room for discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

What others were trying to point out is, with your set of axioms, the conclusion you reach is the basically the only reasonable one. This leaves little room for discussion.

Implying that I was not able to understand their point.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Blood_Shadow:

Implying that I was not able to understand their point.

Well, you did say so yourself, so JohnRulz implying it isn’t really unwarranted.

Originally posted by Blood_Shadow:

And I’ve reread Zzzip’s posts but don’t see where he supposedly pointed out that loophole. But maybe it’s just because it’s 12:30 AM.

By the way, I love the way you counter someone’s post with “I don’t want to discuss, it’s tiring.” That’s a smashing argument.

 
Flag Post

Well, you did say so yourself, so JohnRulz implying it isn’t really unwarranted.

Learn to read. Zzzip said there is not much to discuss, and I understood that. He did not, however, point out the loophole you pointed out. JohnRulz implied that I wasn’t able to understand Zzzip’s point, not that I wasn’t able to understand the fact that Zzzip supposedly pointed out a loophole.

By the way, I love the way you counter someone’s post with “I don’t want to discuss, it’s tiring.” That’s a smashing argument.

Implying that I want to argue with them to begin with.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Blood_Shadow:

Learn to read. Zzzip said there is not much to discuss, and I understood that. He did not, however, point out the loophole you pointed out. JohnRulz implied that I wasn’t able to understand Zzzip’s point, not that I wasn’t able to understand the fact that Zzzip supposedly pointed out a loophole.

You clearly didn’t understand what he said, because if you did, you would have understood the loophole. The loophole is just a pinpointed explanation of just how ridiculous your axioms are, which is what Zzzip50 was trying to tell you.

Implying that I want to argue with them to begin with.

If you didn’t want discussion, then why not just lock the thread? And why don’t you add the axiom “I’m right, everyone else is wrong”? Then you won’t have people trying to discuss your masterpiece.

 
Flag Post

You clearly didn’t understand what he said, because if you did, you would have understood the loophole. The loophole is just a pinpointed explanation of just how ridiculous your axioms are, which is what Zzzip50 was trying to tell you.

No, the loophole was that I made an axiom stating that an intelligent designer doesn’t exist, then appeared to violate that axiom later by speaking as though the intelligent designer does exist. That was just some poor wording on my part, which I fixed.

You seem to be talking about something completely different now. Yes, Zzzip and JohnRulz were trying to say that given my axioms, the conclusion I reached is the only one that can be reached. You seem to think that somehow counts as, or creates, a loophole. Before I posted this, I wasn’t sure if my conclusion was the only possible one, so I posted this thread to see if anyone has reached any other conclusion from my axioms.

If you didn’t want discussion, then why not just lock the thread? And why don’t you add the axiom “I’m right, everyone else is wrong”? Then you won’t have people trying to discuss your masterpiece.

Implying that discussion equates only to arguing.

I wanted to see what people thought, whether they reached any conclusions different from mine from the same set of axioms. If they don’t agree with me, it doesn’t mean I care enough about them to try to change their opinions. It wastes their time as well as mine. If you think I am obligated to defend my position just because I disagree with you, then that’s exactly the kind of attitude I don’t want to waste time dealing with.