This is bodaciously awesome btw.
And yet, within this universe walk vessels that are indeed animate. In our short sightedness we barely understand our own existance. In our arrogance we label the universe and pass it off as fact. There's something a bit more at work.The universe is inanimate, how is it either?!
First: existence.And yet, within this universe walk vessels that are indeed animate. In our short sightedness we barely understand our own existance. In our arrogance we label the universe and pass it off as fact. There's something a bit more at work.
First: existence.
Second: your assertion that a bit more at work is as unsubstantiated as the assertion that nothing is. Because it is you who proposes something more (a sentience to the universe in addition to its corporeality) - whereas we who claim the universe exists only physically claim nothing but what is directly observable - the burden of proof is on you.
Am I correct in reading this as an attempt to null my question vs statement and I must provide proper counter and context to continue?
[Edit] As far as my arrogance, that is irrelavent to the debate and an ad hominem attack.
Going back to your original argument, am I correct in assuming the way of the INTP is to provide an argument, and then present a case by case or contextual point by point, either in the realm of reaffirmation to said contextual point or through assertation? Would this not be the way to present an argument?Well so too would be the arrogance of the human race in adopting materialistic views.
Depends on what you project onto it.Is the universe an intuitive or a sensor and your reasoning behind why?
This one gets it. What style of speech pattern are you using?Depends on what you project onto it.
In this statement you flatly assert that the universe possesses more than merely a material existence. You justify this claim by claiming that humans are shortsighted and arrogant and for that reason their labeling the perceived material nature of the universe as a universal property and truth is mistaken.And yet, within this universe walk vessels that are indeed animate. In our short sightedness we barely understand our own existance. In our arrogance we label the universe and pass it off as fact. There's something a bit more at work.
In this statement you claim that the arrogance of the proponent of an argument is not sufficient grounds for dismissing his argument as it constitutes an "irrelevant" ad hominem attack. I agree. However, in saying this you contradict yourself as the arrogance of the human race was used as sufficient grounds to dismiss its material view of the universe.As far as my arrogance, that is irrelavent to the debate and an ad hominem attack.
This has left me somewhat confused. Your bringing my MBTI type into the discussion is irrelevant. My original argument is that the burden of proof lies on those who propose a sentient universe, and I had outlined that the reason for this was that their view extends beyond current empirical observation.Going back to your original argument, am I correct in assuming the way of the INTP is to provide an argument, and then present a case by case or contextual point by point, either in the realm of reaffirmation to said contextual point or through assertation? Would this not be the way to present an argument?
And more importantly, could this be presented as 'tug of war of ideas'.
how would this link up to the INTP mindset of two people doing this instead of one?
Or for that matter in a group?
Debate? I don't know what there is to debate. First you asked a question - Nobody understood. What should we do about it? It's your job to explain what your question means. Your response to Lara didn't explain much.Am I correct in reading this as an attempt to null my question vs statement and I must provide proper counter and context to continue?First: existence.
Second: your assertion that a bit more at work is as unsubstantiated as the assertion that nothing is. Because it is you who proposes something more (a sentience to the universe in addition to its corporeality) - whereas we who claim the universe exists only physically claim nothing but what is directly observable - the burden of proof is on you.
[Edit] As far as my arrogance, that is irrelavent to the debate and an ad hominem attack.
Do you expect us to just accept this? Give us proof. It isn't even a matter of us accepting it - Give us enough information that we might at least hypothetically answer your question!There's something a bit more at work
Um, American?This one gets it. What style of speech pattern are you using?
XDINTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible.
I would describe humanity as cancer as well. Cancer kills slow, but when allied with other diseases, it is much more dangerous...The "meaning of life" has no spiritual or religious bounds. The true meaning of life , in a nutshell, is to overpopulate. Why? Because we're a cancer. When Earth becomes a, the United States will dissipate to the next habitat simply because of our destructive needs.
We're also innovative and medicine comes straight to mind. Back in the old days, the life expectancy was lower and consequent. Families normally had two generations alive in their adolescence.
Why do we wage wars? Why do we kill "undesirables"? For the simple reason: those people were an infection contaminates (no offense.) and acting like white blood cells with world policing.
But most of all, why do we crave individuality(aside from the obvious) Individuality is a crock either way in the sense of being unique. A girlfriend reinforces our complexes to help us through out personal doubting and deprecation.
That's only if you assume the value of life, the universe and everything to be equal. :tongue:If the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42, then the answer to life must be 14. :laughing:
Proportionally speaking: life > universe > everythingThat's only if you assume the value of life, the universe and everything to be equal. :tongue: