Amber rose says she no longer believes in God… there’s just too many questions

[Reflected]

I assume you work in philosophy? If you do, I have some questions.

I wish I worked in philosophy, I just enjoy the field. But no, I'm studying nursing, because I love it and it because it would be pretty risky pursuing academia considering most philosophy students I know, come from some well to do families and can fall back on pursuing it purely for academic purposes.

You can ask the questions, but I will be the first to tell you if they are too complex for me, which most of philosophy is without prior reading. I only ever attempt to steer people towards thinking a bit more about things because I think it would lead to better results in how we go about life and thus how we treat people.

 

[King_Kamala61]

Yea bruh there’s an obvious difference between painting and sculpting.

Other than the action...there really isnt. You still need to understand light.....

 

[King_Kamala61]

Umm cut the cap

I never said anything about these coming from anybody but humans. What I said was that they’re not built by humans with no technology. And if they were then they CLEARLY have a better understanding than what is around today to have the ability to build things that stand until this day in a quality higher than what we see today.

Hammer, chisel, and hand sanding isn’t doing this.

Im saying...its nothing special about what artists do...yet we are looked at as gods.

And yes we artists still use the same tech they used back in those days...well some of us.

 

[Tair]

My dude, you can try to measure dikks or you can address what I actually said.

You don't even know WHAT lab work I've done. I'm in California homie-- our shyt is cutting edge. Caltech stay on you nikkas necks

I'm not here to prove to you that I know what transfection means, nor provide my credentials. This the Coli. You nikkas don't believe anything but fairy tales lol

I've been telling you this whole time.

"Nullius in verba"

Like I mentioned to Reflected:

"I don't believe in science, I just follow the scientific method when trying to understand observed phenomenon."

 

[Kyle C. Barker]

You believe the conclusions that were given to you.

Don't you think you test out what you learn in lecture during your lab sections?

 

[Kyle C. Barker]

How Castles Work

Castle construction was an expensive undertaking and employed around 3,000 workers. Learn about the ancient castle construction techniques and tools.

history.howstuffworks.com

How did they build castles on cliffs?

Workers use horse-drawn wagons to haul the stones from the quarry to the building site. Stone masons then chisel the raw stone into blocks. Workers use man-powered cranes to lift the finished stones to the scaffolding on the castle wall. Other workers make mortar on the site from lime, soil and water.

@Everythingg is really talking about "science can't explain it"

The last half of Physics 1 is literally about simple machines that would, surprise surprise, explain how they could build the structures he's taking about

 

[FLYINHAWAIIAN]

You don't believe in science? Science got that computer in your hand working breh. It's tangible.

Negros will disklike science but do 60mph on the highway with no worry I guess Jesus gon take the wheel if something goes bad

 

[Tair]

I wish I worked in philosophy, I just enjoy the field. But no, I'm studying nursing, because I love it and it because it would be pretty risky pursuing academia considering most philosophy students I know, come from some well to do families and can fall back on pursuing it purely for academic purposes.

You can ask the questions, but I will be the first to tell you if they are too complex for me, which most of philosophy is without prior reading. I only ever attempt to steer people towards thinking a bit more about things because I think it would lead to better results in how we go about life and thus how we treat people.

I've been saying for the longest that sometimes strict adherence to the "law of noncontradiction" will lead, eventually, to a closed-in thinking. That sometimes paraconsistent logic is more useful because it allows for contradictions to be seen as 'valid mechanisms of reasoning'. Or am I wrong in this regard?

Don't you think you test out what you learn in lecture during your lab sections?

Yes, we always test it out. The lectures are just to give us theory/background to help guide us during our lab-work or homework.

That is the point of science, observe and confirm through tests.

but I agree with @Reflected in that we need to define our terms first and then proceed. I just see people always using the "I believe you" approach so they don't have to engage and think about what's being sold to them.

 

[Reflected]

I've been saying for the longest that sometimes strict adherence to the "law of noncontradiction" will lead, eventually, to a closed-in thinking. That sometimes paraconsistent logic is more useful because it allows for contradictions to be seen as 'valid mechanisms of reasoning'. Or am I wrong in this regard?

I see, your approach isn't nonsensical at all, if I have it right, there are arguments in favor of it.


You can just use the SEP for most thoughts you have, although, I would use google to search for SEP articles as opposed to searching within the SEP:

Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

But from that:

Overview:

A dialetheia is a sentence, AA, such that both it and its negation, ¬A¬A, are true. If falsity is assumed to be the truth of negation, a dialetheia is a sentence which is both true and false. Such a sentence is, or has, what is called a truth value glut, in distinction to a gap, a sentence that is neither true nor false. (We shall talk of sentences throughout this entry; but one could run the definition in terms of propositions, statements, or whatever one takes as one’s favourite truth-bearer: this would make little difference in the context.)

Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias. If we define a contradiction as a couple of sentences, one of which is the negation of the other, or as a conjunction of such sentences, then dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions. As such, dialetheism opposes—contradicts—the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), sometimes also called the Law of Contradiction. The Law can be expressed in various ways; fixing the precise formulation is itself a topic of debate (Priest et al 2004, Part II). Thomas Reid put the LNC in the form ‘No proposition is both true and false’. A strong (modal) statement of the LNC is: for any AA, it is impossible that both AA and ¬A¬A be true.

Arguments for:

Sampling 3.2

3.2 A Simple Case Study: the Liar​

In its standard version, the Liar paradox arises by reasoning on the following sentence:

(1): (1) is false

where the number to the left is the name of the sentence to the right. As we can see, (1) refers to itself and tells us something about (1) itself. Its truth value? Let us reason by cases. Suppose (1) is true: then what it says is the case, so it is false. Then, suppose (1) is false: this is what it claims to be, so it is true. If we accept the aforementioned Law of Bivalence, that is, the principle according to which all sentences are either true or false, both alternatives lead to a contradiction: (1) is both true and false, that is, a dialetheia, contrary to the LNC.
=================

The paradox can also be produced without any direct self-reference, but via a short-circuit of sentences. For instance, here is a looped Liar:

(2a): (2b) is true

(2b): (2a) is false

If what (2a) says is true, then (2b) is true. However, (2b) says that (2a) is false …. And so on: we are in a paradoxical loop. This is as old as Buridan (his Sophism no. 9: Plato saying ‘What Socrates says is true’; Socrates replying ‘ What Plato says is false’).

Arguments against found here, (I won't quote because of space):

Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

At face value, and through my limited understanding, I would be inclined to favor LNC as a necessary component of reasoning and although I have encountered what you are getting at in discussion previously, it's currently beyond my understanding due to a lack of interest and reading on the topic. I would go to leading philosophers in agreement with the pov, and of course those leading in objection and read their works.

But to give you an understanding of where that falls amongst philosophers:

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5194

Target Population​

The Survey's target population includes 7685 philosophers drawn from two groups: (1) From Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the US (6112 philosophers): all regular faculty members (tenure-track or permanent) in BA-granting philosophy departments with four or more members (according to the PhilPeople database). (2). From all other countries (1573 philosophers): English-publishing philosophers in BA-granting philosophy departments with four or more English-publishing faculty members. An English-publishing philosopher is defined as someone with one or more publications in the PhilPapers database in a wide range of English-language venues, including English-language journals and book publishers.

And you might be interested in the entirety of the survey:

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/questions

 

[Reflected]

@Tair



He also goes over the paradox and its relevance and the history of the argument.

Relevant works:

The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays

The Law of Non-Contradiction -- that no contradiction c…

www.goodreads.com

Logic: A Very Short Introduction

Logic is often perceived as having little to do with th…

www.goodreads.com

As I assumed, you be better of going to logicians for that. Formal logic ranges for digestible to beyond hard, with the digestible part being pretty open to anyone, whether math is a strong suit or not, at least imo. I will try to squeeze in the books, I went from not really being interested to somewhat interest, kind of crazy how some random discussion, especially this thread can lead to that.

 

[Tair]

@Tair



He also goes over the paradox and its relevance and the history of the argument.

Relevant works:

The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays

The Law of Non-Contradiction -- that no contradiction c…

www.goodreads.com

Logic: A Very Short Introduction

Logic is often perceived as having little to do with th…

www.goodreads.com

As I assumed, you be better of going to logicians for that. Formal logic ranges for digestible to beyond hard, with the digestible part being pretty open to anyone, whether math is a strong suit or not, at least imo. I will try to squeeze in the books, I went from not really being interested to somewhat interest, kind of crazy how some random discussion, especially this thread can lead to that.

I didn't continue with logic past the course I took freshman year. But I recently have been trying to get back into it.

I can't rep you as I already did, but once I can rep again, I will.

Thanks for the direction and information.

 

[Everythingg]

Other than the action...there really isnt. You still need to understand light.....

Im saying...its nothing special about what artists do...yet we are looked at as gods.

And yes we artists still use the same tech they used back in those days...well some of us.

To take a hammer and chisel and create a marble net with individual strands on it is some next level never seen before artistry. To have hammer and chisel with horse and buggy and create castles on mountains with quality that is unmatched today with “more” tech and manpower is also next level never seen before artistry.

If you don’t wanna talk about that then that’s cool. But all that “we are looked at as gods” talk is deflecting from what was actually stated.

 

[Everythingg]

@Everythingg is really talking about "science can't explain it"

The last half of Physics 1 is literally about simple machines that would, surprise surprise, explain how they could build the structures he's taking about

If you want to say that all this was created rudimentary tools:

More deflecting. Deflect this too:

St Louis World fair 1904

Chicago World fair 1893

San Fran World Fair 1915

Charleston World fair 1901

Then that’s on you. Personally I think that’s BS that when the lights were off and there was no cameras this is what cacs was doing but now that they’re on and their are cameras they aren’t building in this style at all. Despite having “more” tech and man power than the people that built this did

Don’t worry I don’t expect you to address that either like the others in the thread who mock people who question official narratives that were pushed on them

 

[King_Kamala61]

To take a hammer and chisel and create a marble net with individual strands on it is some next level never seen before artistry. To have hammer and chisel with horse and buggy and create castles on mountains with quality that is unmatched today with “more” tech and manpower is also next level never seen before artistry.

If you don’t wanna talk about that then that’s cool. But all that “we are looked at as gods” talk is deflecting from what was actually stated.

Yes. It was great for that period. You give me those exact tools and leave me to my devices, i will create shyt that will wow you too. Technology be damned.

 

[Sccit]

Be anti-science on a platform that literally only exists due to science brehs.
Question the science as a scientific illiterate but don't question your own narratives brehs.
Don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory brehs.
Deny we went to the moon brehs.
Be a flat earther in 2022 brehs.

Be dumber than your ancestors brehs.

BE A SOULLESS ATHIEST CAC WHO THINKS HES FAMOUS BECAUSE HE BUYS FOLLOWERS ONLINE BRODIES