My post for this week is this - short and sweet.
Im basically begging the question about ...I donno...the existance of modern religions.
Here it is:
If God told people to write down his word (his law, if you will), then why did it take him so long to do it.
Wouldn't the bible have been first written in sandscrit, the first written language?
I feel like this proves a fallacy in the argument that God actually narrated for the people his word to be written down and obeyed.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What are you talking about?
This is a paranoid way to look at the world, but take into question the statement 'Have you ever been in trouble?'
The lexical definition of the word 'trouble', according to dictionary.com, is an "unfortunate or distressing position, circumstance, or occurence; misfortune"
But this seems to be where things become interesting, because 'trouble' could be an ambiguous term, not only because it has other definitions based on how the word is used (verb with object, verb without object, noun, or idiom), but because the person asking the question could have given it their own stipulative definition.
We'll say that they've decided, stipulatively, that 'trouble' alternately means 'Massachusetts'. You would be answering their question based on previous knowledge of how people have used this expression without taking into account that 'trouble' can mean different things to different people.
I knew a girl that used to do this so that only her close friend knew what she was talking about.
My question is this:
^that girl has done it, have you?
The lexical definition of the word 'trouble', according to dictionary.com, is an "unfortunate or distressing position, circumstance, or occurence; misfortune"
But this seems to be where things become interesting, because 'trouble' could be an ambiguous term, not only because it has other definitions based on how the word is used (verb with object, verb without object, noun, or idiom), but because the person asking the question could have given it their own stipulative definition.
We'll say that they've decided, stipulatively, that 'trouble' alternately means 'Massachusetts'. You would be answering their question based on previous knowledge of how people have used this expression without taking into account that 'trouble' can mean different things to different people.
I knew a girl that used to do this so that only her close friend knew what she was talking about.
My question is this:
^that girl has done it, have you?
Saturday, October 15, 2011
My new shorts
Ok, so I went to my friends party a year ago (August 31st). It was at his house and he has a pool that became competely irresistable after losing a few games of beirut.
Long story short, I didn't have any clothes to change into once his pool got my khaki shorts wet. So, being the cool guy that he is (his name is Chas, by the way), he noticed my perdicament and went up to his room to take responsibility for his pool being uncovered by getting me a dry pair of his own.
This is a terrible picture of what they look like:
So basically, I have a term here - 'these shorts'
The intension of my term would be "gray with red and white stripes, soft and comfortable, having a drawstring to tighten the waist"
But I am mildly confused about the extension
-This is because he never actually said that the shorts were mine - so as far as I can tell, they are neither fully mine, nor his, but maybe both of ours?
-The question is this: Would the extension here be both 'me and Chas' or because he's never going to get these shorts back, would the extension just be 'me'?
Long story short, I didn't have any clothes to change into once his pool got my khaki shorts wet. So, being the cool guy that he is (his name is Chas, by the way), he noticed my perdicament and went up to his room to take responsibility for his pool being uncovered by getting me a dry pair of his own.
This is a terrible picture of what they look like:
So basically, I have a term here - 'these shorts'
The intension of my term would be "gray with red and white stripes, soft and comfortable, having a drawstring to tighten the waist"
But I am mildly confused about the extension
-This is because he never actually said that the shorts were mine - so as far as I can tell, they are neither fully mine, nor his, but maybe both of ours?
-The question is this: Would the extension here be both 'me and Chas' or because he's never going to get these shorts back, would the extension just be 'me'?
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Aliens Need Food
I came up with this really stupid conspiracy theory involving aliens and figured I would turn it into an argument.
Basically, the theory is almost like the matrix, where people are the living batteries for the machine run world. But it goes something like this - what if an alien species was smart enough to deposite an 'inferior' creature (humans) into a green pasture where they could thrive, reproduce, and be harvested when they were fat enough (had enough of the species to make it worth it for them to open the fenced in pasture). Ok, now picture the fenced in green grazing pasture as a planet - Earth. Maybe these aliens put us here to harvest as a food source knowing full well that we are incredibly adaptable and can thrive in almost any place assuming that conditions for life have been met.
Im not saying I agree with or believe this, but im going to put into an inductive argument form anyway.
P1: Earth has the right elements and is the proper distance from the sun to support life.
P2: Humans live on Earth and have adapted so well that they have become the dominant species.
P3: As humans advance technologically, their population have increases exponentially.
P4: Humans are made out of meat.
P5: Meat is a well known food source.
P6: No one can disprove the existance of alien life in other parts of the universe.
P7: There is no evidence to support humans being the most technologically advanced species in the universe.
P8: Alien species could have the technology to sucessfully travel through space.
P9: Aliens would need food.
P10: Aliens could be using Earth as a pasture for their livestock, humans.
C: Aliens have, more than likely, deposited the human species onto Earth so the humans could reproduce and be harvested when ripe (the population is high enough).
Basically, the theory is almost like the matrix, where people are the living batteries for the machine run world. But it goes something like this - what if an alien species was smart enough to deposite an 'inferior' creature (humans) into a green pasture where they could thrive, reproduce, and be harvested when they were fat enough (had enough of the species to make it worth it for them to open the fenced in pasture). Ok, now picture the fenced in green grazing pasture as a planet - Earth. Maybe these aliens put us here to harvest as a food source knowing full well that we are incredibly adaptable and can thrive in almost any place assuming that conditions for life have been met.
Im not saying I agree with or believe this, but im going to put into an inductive argument form anyway.
P1: Earth has the right elements and is the proper distance from the sun to support life.
P2: Humans live on Earth and have adapted so well that they have become the dominant species.
P3: As humans advance technologically, their population have increases exponentially.
P4: Humans are made out of meat.
P5: Meat is a well known food source.
P6: No one can disprove the existance of alien life in other parts of the universe.
P7: There is no evidence to support humans being the most technologically advanced species in the universe.
P8: Alien species could have the technology to sucessfully travel through space.
P9: Aliens would need food.
P10: Aliens could be using Earth as a pasture for their livestock, humans.
C: Aliens have, more than likely, deposited the human species onto Earth so the humans could reproduce and be harvested when ripe (the population is high enough).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)