[OOC] Myriad Reality

[souleaterfan320]

Night Knight.

@Zeal

That pitch perfect reference.

[whizzball1]

bed, ned

[souleaterfan320]

bed, ned

@whizzball1

Same.

Nighthgin.

[Host]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

Same.

Nighthgin.

@souleaterfan320

Night, laters.

[souleaterfan320]

Adrin doesn't mess around XD

[whizzball1]

Someone tried to prove God exists with the worst argument ever.

"(1)It is possible that god exists
(2)If it is possible that god exists, god must exist in a possible world
(3)If god exists in a possible, god exists in all possible world
(4)If god exists in all possible worlds, it must exist in our world
Therefore god exists."

Needless to say, I took that down, surprisingly alongside an athiest.

[souleaterfan320]

Someone tried to prove God exists with the worst argument ever.

"(1)It is possible that god exists
(2)If it is possible that god exists, god must exist in a possible world
(3)If god exists in a possible, god exists in all possible world
(4)If god exists in all possible worlds, it must exist in our world
Therefore god exists."

Needless to say, I took that down, surprisingly alongside an athiest.

@whizzball1

Adrin: I approve his message.

[Host]

Someone tried to prove God exists with the worst argument ever.

"(1)It is possible that god exists
(2)If it is possible that god exists, god must exist in a possible world
(3)If god exists in a possible, god exists in all possible world
(4)If god exists in all possible worlds, it must exist in our world
Therefore god exists."

Needless to say, I took that down, surprisingly alongside an athiest.

@whizzball1

That's actually an intelligent argument against the multiverse theory. I've heard it before.

[whizzball1]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

That's actually an intelligent argument against the multiverse theory. I've heard it before.

@Host

Against the multiverse theory, yes--but the person was trying to use it to prove God to a group of people that did not believe in the multiverse theory, one reason for which was the hole presented by that very argument. But one of the big things that was revealed to be wrong with it was that the person was speaking about a thought experiment, where you imagine that something may be true. He said that if God is possible, he must exist in a thought experiment (but he refers to it as a possible world, which muddles the true meaning), and so he must exist in all possible worlds, and so he must exist in our world. This is very clearly flawed.

[whizzball1]

Also, my posts are OVER 9000!
i'm so sorry

[Host]

<Snipped quote by Host>

Against the multiverse theory, yes--but the person was trying to use it to prove God to a group of people that did not believe in the multiverse theory, one reason for which was the hole presented by that very argument. But one of the big things that was revealed to be wrong with it was that the person was speaking about a thought experiment, where you imagine that something may be true. He said that if God is possible, he must exist in a thought experiment (but he refers to it as a possible world, which muddles the true meaning), and so he must exist in all possible worlds, and so he must exist in our world. This is very clearly flawed.

@whizzball1

That is flawed.

Also, my posts are OVER 9000!
i'm so sorry

@whizzball1

Okay, Vegeta. I'm here with my 1.6 thousand on this account.

[whizzball1]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

That is flawed.

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

Okay, Vegeta. I'm here with my 1.6 thousand on this account.

@Host

Exactly, and we're trying to explain that to him, but he doesn't seem to understand. We hope my latest post explains it clearly, though.

"It is not that possible worlds are real or fake, they are simply possible."
The argument falls apart right here. The idea that something is possible does not immediately imply it to be true. If God as a maximally great being is possible in a hypothetical thought experiment, that doesn't mean anything. It just means that he's possible in a hypothetical thought experiment.

And so let me explain my final thought process further: If God, because he is maximally great and exists in a possible universe, is therefore necessary and must exist in all possible universes, including ours, I can simply come up with another possible universe where there exists a god that transcends the very idea of maximally great, and also hates everything and wants to destroy it all. Well, now he exists in a possible world, and since he's greater than maximally great, he must be necessary and thus must exist in all possible worlds, and so he would have destroyed our world as well.

But I can go one step further and entirely invalidate the premise, by saying that our world is not a possible world. It is the real world. So even if God existed in all possible worlds (which, by the way, He doesn't, because I just imagined a possible world where God does not exist), that doesn't mean he would exist in ours.

The fallacy you exhibit is trying to take philosophy that occurs within the mind and make it affect reality. No amount of thought will ever do anything unless you do something with it.

You just have a million accounts. If you combined them all you would probably have over 9000 times 2 or something.

[Host]

<Snipped quote by Host>

Exactly, and we're trying to explain that to him, but he doesn't seem to understand. We hope my latest post explains it clearly, though.

<Snipped quote>

You just have a million accounts. If you combined them all you would probably have over 9000 times 2 or something.

@whizzball1

Correction: I have a billion of them. Literally literally.

[whizzball1]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

Correction: I have a billion of them. Literally literally.

@Host

Heheheh.

[Host]

<Snipped quote by Host>

Heheheh.

@whizzball1

Remember that?

[whizzball1]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

Remember that?

@Host

The last time you posted using "a billion of them", I suddenly remembered.

[whizzball1]

My Latin book is so violent.
"The soldiers fight long and bravely that they may get the glory of victory.
The soldiers bitterly strive with the enemy in order that they may seek and kill them."
That's the translation of the last two sentences I had to translate. But, to be fair, it focuses heavily on Rome, and half of Rome's history is slaughtering everyone that didn't agree with them. [citation needed]

[Host]

My Latin book is so violent.
"The soldiers fight long and bravely that they may get the glory of victory.
The soldiers bitterly strive with the enemy in order that they may seek and kill them."
That's the translation of the last two sentences I had to translate. But, to be fair, it focuses heavily on Rome, and half of Rome's history is slaughtering everyone that didn't agree with them. [citation needed]

@whizzball1

That's pretty much it. That, and harming the Jews like every other culture that has ever existed.

[whizzball1]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

That's pretty much it. That, and harming the Jews like every other culture that has ever existed.

@Host

But at least they made roads.

[Host]

<Snipped quote by Host>

But at least they made roads.

@whizzball1

And aqueducts.