19:40 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: philosophising??!?!
19:40 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: sorry about the HUUGE wait
19:55 - [TCHS] Nannal: it's cool
19:56 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: how has the progressed?
19:56 - [TCHS] Nannal: God talk is meaningless
“To be god is to be perfection, to know god is to know perfection and to talk of god is to convey perfection from ones mentality to another’s through an imperfect means”. This assertion of course needs to be proven instead of being taken as is.
The first statement “To be God is to be perfection” means of course that the following argument cannot be applied to a religious belief that states that god is imperfect. However I could of course argue that to be god is to set the bar for perfection however from the viewpoint of our society this could be dangerous, for example there were many god of war each very much imperfect and each with the ability to state that to be in war is to be in the best possible human state. Therefore we must accept only religions that state that their gods are not designated to certain aspects and that “God is perfect”, Christianity and Islam for example (although Hinduism does apply its gods to aspects the one God Brahman is said to be perfect. However everything we can know is part of Brahman yet Hinduism states that when the word becomes too corrupt Shiva will destroy it and therefore Brahman is susceptible to imperfection and this Hinduism does not fill the criteria needed.) I hasten to add that of course I will be returning to religions that have imperfect gods and I will of course therefore be not simply neglecting them, simply putting them aside for the moment.
Now we have established that for a select few religions “To be God is to be perfect”
20:00 - [TCHS] Nannal: from there I go onto religious experiences and how only people who have truly known god could talk about him meaningfully
20:00 - [TCHS] Nannal: and from that language is obviously open to interpretation and thus imperfect
20:01 - [TCHS] Nannal: then go onto that god cannot be perfect due to the problem of evil
20:01 - [TCHS] Nannal: and thus all talk of god must be meaningful
20:01 - [TCHS] Nannal: *some
20:04 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: I think it's good so far. All the main religions apply utmost perfection to the nature of God, but you've touched on the limitations of this with regards to Hinduism, for example. But don't forget to relate it to the logical positivists in a way that looks and sounds amazing...and proves that you are God. Relating to that, you could say that all God speak is meaningful because no one has established a criterion by which you can outlaw talking about God and such unscrupulous things alone, without spilling into other ideas. I think i'll play with the question "is logical positivism meaningless if we apply the question of logical positivism to it?"
20:05 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: I think you've touched on the right point exactly with language...
20:06 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: ..and a religious person might accept the logical limits of their belief, opting instead for a more intuitive method. It's this intuition and belief absent of justification that, i think , angers those pesky positivists the most...
20:09 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: Obviously, I think we're approaching the issue from different points of view. I'm ignoring the question of the meaningless of God speak (being a non-believer and all) and assuming it is. I then (hope) I can move on and say that the Logical positivists outlaw, through their ideas, things that they don't want to. I then intend to postulate that it is all, ultimately, intuitive and non-refutable...
20:09 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: don't listen to my voodoo antics...
20:09 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i'm MAAAAD
20:10 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: really MAAAD!
20:10 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: really really MAAAAAD!
20:10 - [TCHS] Nannal: yes, yes you are
20:12 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: brb
20:12 - [TCHS] Nannal: You better be
20:17 - [TCHS] Nannal: what were the criteria for a true religious experience
20:17 - [TCHS] Nannal: ineffability was an important one in my argument
20:17 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: soz wait a sec...
20:17 - [TCHS] Nannal: *Sorry
20:31 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: errm.
20:32 - [TCHS] Nannal: Type as though you were writing, people have <I AM INSULTING PEOPLE> typing and it is my firm intention to stop that from happening.
20:32 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i'll check my notes. I actually mentioned in my Heythorp essay that a religious experience can provide an empirical justification for the existence of God in the Christian sense. Though I also touched on the logical issues of an all-powerful God...]#
20:32 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: :
20:33 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: if he's all-powerful, is he understandable through the human nature?
20:33 - [TCHS] Nannal: dont worry, I'm past it
20:33 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: it's a limitation for him tro be; is it not a limitation for him not to be?
20:33 - [TCHS] Nannal: I went round it
20:33 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: JEW!
20:35 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: Dawkins also postulated that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible...
20:38 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: If a god is all-powerful, dawkins argues, he should be able to change his mind...
20:39 - [TCHS] Nannal: he could, he just dosnt because he is right
20:39 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: If god is omniscient, he shouldn't need to change his mind. It's a jammy criticism in my view. I don't like it
20:39 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: Perhaps you touch on the critical point
20:40 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: god, i'm trying to do too many things at once!!
20:40 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: ARRRGH!
20:43 - [TCHS] Nannal: you're excluded from the above, you are allowed to talk at me
20:43 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: talk "AT" you, eh?
20:44 - [TCHS] Nannal: That was the joke
20:44 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: well IT'S NOT FUNNY!!!
20:46 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: is the doing a 2nd essay, or just the one?
20:46 - [TCHS] Nannal: this is the first one
20:47 - [TCHS] Nannal: and i have to do the other one for tuesday
20:47 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: tuesday?
20:47 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: TUESDAY!
20:47 - [TCHS] Nannal: however I have another essay that needs doing
20:47 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: TUUUUEDDAY?!?!?
20:47 - [TCHS] Nannal: and that's when the extention is to
20:48 - [TCHS] Nannal: however I might sneak round the english one i have to have done for tommrow by station that I worked upon it but had other essays priotised above it
20:48 - [TCHS] Nannal: and having only two nights to do it when the others had eleven seems unfair in my eyes
20:48 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: it is
20:48 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: indeed it is
20:48 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: indeed
20:49 - [TCHS] Nannal: anyway I'm really going to need your help fitting the stuff we actually learned into this because I'm bad at that kind of thing
20:50 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i'll be with you after i've organised a few things, and culled Matt. And had by lovely curry
20:56 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: sorry, i'll be back in a bit...
[DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK] is now Away.
21:04 - [TCHS] Nannal: it's cool, i'm "Playing" what I'm playing to get matt to <LOOK MA, I AM SWEARING> off
[DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK] is now Online.
[DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK] is now Away.
[DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK] is now Online.
21:41 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: SHABBA!
22:33 - [TCHS] Nannal: so now i'm done with the "My idea" section of the essay
22:33 - [TCHS] Nannal: it's kinda long winded at 1042 words
22:33 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: FUCK IT!
22:33 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: FUUUUCK IT!
22:33 - [TCHS] Nannal: ... it hasn't the correct holes
22:33 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: 1042
22:34 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: a poultry sum
22:34 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: ha!
22:34 - [TCHS] Nannal: I defy you to triple that then good sir!
22:34 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: shiiiiiiii...
22:34 - [TCHS] Nannal: and in forfeit I expect your first wife
22:34 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: not my first wife!!!
22:35 - [TCHS] Nannal: The very same
22:38 - [TCHS] Nannal: btw our entire convocation is now in the user quotes section of Techious
22:38 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: FUUUUUUUU
22:38 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: did you accidentally paste it
22:38 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: it's not that funny, mo fp!
22:39 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: LAAAAAAASER!
22:39 - [TCHS] Nannal: yeah I tripped, he fell and it ended up in the user quotes section
22:39 - [TCHS] Nannal: and i know it's got nothing on some of our conversations
22:39 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: that's the way the cookie crumbles

22:49 - [TCHS] Nannal: I'm tempted to just leave it as it is and put "So tired, hands ache, fingers attacked with super glue, this is just the analogical way proven to be the best of three terrible ways, wish family still loved me" at the bottom
22:49 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: glue?
22:49 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i shouldn't have asked...
22:49 - [TCHS] Nannal: attached
22:50 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i took it to mean as such, you heathen.
22:50 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: it's inherently wierd.
22:50 - [TCHS] Nannal: so's your fa.. I'm better than that
22:50 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i demand your second wife as compensation
22:50 - [TCHS] Nannal: YA MAM IS TOO LOLOL
22:50 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: OMG!!!
22:51 - [TCHS] Nannal: I KNOW RUIGH DID U C H0LLi-0KES!!!?
22:51 - [TCHS] Nannal: THAT DARREN WAZ WELL OUT OF OURDER
22:52 - [TCHS] Nannal: HE SHOULDENT HAVE EVEN TOUCH SHANENE BEHIND DA BIKE SHEADS HE WUS SUPPOSED TO BE LUKIN AFTER HIZ GRADMOTHERS BOYFRIENDS SISTERZ PORN STAR DOG
22:52 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure
[DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK] is now Away.
[DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK] is now Online.
23:38 - [TCHS] Nannal: http://techious.pastebin.com/f15b06496
23:40 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: PORN STAR DOG!!!
23:40 - [TCHS] Nannal: you fianlly read that?
23:40 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: yeeees
23:44 - [TCHS] Nannal: any idea how I should proceed ?
23:45 - [TCHS] Nannal: I have no idea how I'm going to explain how it fits in with the analogical way the via negativa or the other one
23:45 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: Terry needs a second name
23:45 - [TCHS] Nannal: tarrent
23:45 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: good
23:46 - [TCHS] Nannal: is that all you can think of?
23:46 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i'm thinking...
23:46 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: THINKING!
23:46 - [TCHS] Nannal: Thank you
23:52 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: I can has correction sumbitting on your site?
23:53 - [TCHS] Nannal: ?you mean can you edit it?
23:53 - [TCHS] Nannal: ^I'm spanish obviously
23:53 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i mean can i submit a post pointing out additions
23:53 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: i don't want to edit it
23:53 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: and remove shits
23:53 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: no
23:54 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: ?it doesn't seem i can...?!?
23:54 - [TCHS] Nannal: probably not, I could put it on the wiki, everything is backed up so you could edit to your hearts content
23:54 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: don't bother
23:54 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: "Note however with the problem of evil can one truly claim that God is originally perfect? The answer is no, there are evils within our world that a perfect God (one with omnipotence) would have corrected and therefore God is inherently imperfect without the imperfections that come from the human mind and the constraints of human language."
23:55 - [TCHS] Nannal: who ever wrote that must be smart
23:55 - [TCHS] Nannal: I bet all the women fall for him
23:55 - [DUNG] Roman In Disguise [UK]: lol
23:55 - [TCHS] Nannal: and if they dont they ought to