Pwned: tooltime9901

This is a response to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPAX8IL8Gw

Yeah... I thought your title was funny, and presumptuous enough, to make it my own...

Have a fun time responding to this video... and the next... and the next...

Oh, cause I won't stop responding.

You think that's annoying?

You shouldn't... if you are right, right?

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• tooltime9901
• Npage85
• god
• philosophy
• theism
• atheism
• pwnage

[Diomedes01]

I rated it one star. But I will be happy to provide a comment.

You have NO idea what you are talking about. You are throwing around pseudo-intellectual arguments to justify your flawed premise. I could refute it, but I have insufficient space in this comment block. The only summary I would provide is the notion of a 'mind' is strictly conjecture. Your argument is attempting to prove something unproven by justifying the existence of something else which is unproven. Flawed from all angles.

[npage85]

lol...

You call my arguments "pseudointellectual..."

I completely destroyed every single point that tooltime made in this debate... and I find it funny that the only people coming over to rate it one star are his subscribers.

Isn't that a little interesting... hmmm....

[AdvocatusThei]

I have an honest question:

Let's assume that things existed before I was conceived and therefore before my mind came into existence. I can imagine the past, and it existed, yet my mind did not exist in the pats. Therefore following your argument the past did not exist. How can this contradiction be rectified?

I came up with two solutions:

-I cannot imagine the past, only an image of what I think the past looked like.

-It is only necessary to be able to imagine the future for it to be possible.

[npage85]

I believe you are thinking about this the wrong way from the start.

It must be impossible for anything to imagine it for it to be impossible to happen.

People in the past imagined the past... so the past cannot be used in a counter-argument to my argument.

At least that is how I have countered this objection before.

[meinonghitdatbong]

ok you know berkeleys argument for the necessity of idealism since the act of conceiving of something unconceived implies that it is conceived. thats how bad your argument is. just though you should know. first anything that is logically consistent is possible (this is what we call conceivability, not imagining). second, if we change it to conceivability instead, you still make the berkeleyan error of confusing the act of conceiving with conceivability.

[twinqletwinqle]

You confuse imagine, with experience.

Your whole 'blackness' eg is just another way of saying 'I think therefore I am', but it doesn't apply here.

I can IMAGINE non-existence as a thing. However I can't EXPERIENCE non-existence because I'm in the act of existing (your example).

It's a sunny day, I can imagine it to be a rainy day (swap with non-existance), but I can't experience today as a rainy day.

[Siashi]

Eh.. 1 point. How can you make a distinction between physical and non-physical if you are a monist? Perhaps you could look up Hinduism in regards to that. By saying that the mind and brain are separate, you are claiming dualism. And we have seen cases of the "mind" be influenced by purely physical events, such as Phineas Gage. So seeing that the mind can be influenced by the physical, why can't we posit that the mind was created by the physical? There is obvious interaction with the physical.

[LocustFurii]

Interesting argument but to me all it proves is there is likely 2 universes, the one we conjure in our heads and the one that actually exists outside our consciousness. That is if we assume that are seperate which I think today's science does. Perhaps, we can't imagine ourselves not existing is because it is our dna programming to keep surviving in the material world. 1000+ years ago no one could have imagined quantum physics, but it exists today.

[Skydeskiven]

Why are you in a jungel?

[Hammerfly86]

@npage85 "It must be impossible for anything to imagine it for it to be impossible to happen."

But can't other people imagine me not existing? Which would mean that its not impossible for me not to exist, which contradicts your whole conclusion...

[helldogas2]

@npage85 You can't really pwn someone who is right.

[Gaaminator]

God is partly Physical, Jesus CHrist came down to earth to die for our sins.

So if got is a trinity then he is in 3 parts, but physical and supernatural.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus Christ...He was a real historical person.

[Samael994]

@ShroomFuu86

Well for example, at 2.10 he attempts to prove his point by describing the non-physical nature of the mind, despite the fact the existence of any independent phenomenon such as the mind has never been demonstrated. So his evidence for something unproven is something else, which is unproven. Thats a flawed argument.

[ShroomFuu86]

@Samael994 what flaw? bust out that knowledge.

[Jonstern1983]

How is it impossible to imagine a scene in which you don't exist? I write fiction, and while I do put and author avatar in many of my works, much of it does not include my avatar, and since it is fiction it does not include myself. There I just shot your argument down with the power of fiction. If you cannot imagine a scene where you do not exist, you have no imagination.