Are we both talking about logical consistency of the theory with itself and observations? (You know about self-hating number theory, how it shows that truth doesn’t enter into this?) Or do you mean to include some aesthetically consistent style that you perceive in Thomism but not Pastafarianism?
I’m talking about logical consistency with itself and observation as well as with itself on a meta-level.
(In that case, your aesthetic preference is wrong.)
So you admit that it’s possible for aesthetic preferences to be wrong.
If one of those is right, are you willing to put $500 against $50?
I can’t make bets involving money as that would break my pseudonymity. Also, who would judge?
Dude says he can construct a Pastafarian theology better than Thomism in one month, gets upvoted, dude who expresses doubt of this gets downvoted. LW is completely batshit insane sometimes. (From a strictly epistemic standpoint anyway. Politically speaking I’m sure blindly shouting “boo God yay science” is a reasonable strategy.)
I’d forgotten that mass-downvoter and sockpuppeteer Eugine Nier was the one who refused this bet. (Of course he wants to keep his anonymity!) I’d also mostly forgotten that you defended his nonsense. In retrospect, you encouraged him to try and drive me away from the site.
Note that I was totally correct, and the two of you were totally wrong. There is nothing special about the Bible that prevents me from just taking all the dishonest tricks used by Thomism to defend it, and applying them to Pastafarianism. In fact, a religion that praises pirates is a more natural fit for the theology originally written by Aristotle (tutor of famed pirate/emperor Alexander).
logical consistency with itself and observation as well as with itself on a meta-level.
Just for the sake of clarity, do you think it contradicts facts about the ‘natural’ meaning of “natural law”—about the rules that every smart human (or suitably extrapolated human) who cares about “being provident for itself and for others,” would agree with? Certainly if we assumed no such rules exist, that would contradict the ‘natural’ reading.
Thomism does feel self-consistent to me if I assume that every law comes from a medieval ruler or similar source. Now assume instead that pirates are divine beings. I’m thinking here of John “I Wanna Be a Pirate” Rackham, Anne Bonny, and Mary “Totally a Man” Read. See also “Kenpachi”.
So you admit that it’s possible for aesthetic preferences to be wrong.
That was also a joke? I do think you’d change your positive opinion of Thomism (v Pastafarianism) if you looked at all aspects of the situation.
I’m talking about logical consistency with itself and observation as well as with itself on a meta-level.
So you admit that it’s possible for aesthetic preferences to be wrong.
I can’t make bets involving money as that would break my pseudonymity. Also, who would judge?
Dude says he can construct a Pastafarian theology better than Thomism in one month, gets upvoted, dude who expresses doubt of this gets downvoted. LW is completely batshit insane sometimes. (From a strictly epistemic standpoint anyway. Politically speaking I’m sure blindly shouting “boo God yay science” is a reasonable strategy.)
I’d forgotten that mass-downvoter and sockpuppeteer Eugine Nier was the one who refused this bet. (Of course he wants to keep his anonymity!) I’d also mostly forgotten that you defended his nonsense. In retrospect, you encouraged him to try and drive me away from the site.
Note that I was totally correct, and the two of you were totally wrong. There is nothing special about the Bible that prevents me from just taking all the dishonest tricks used by Thomism to defend it, and applying them to Pastafarianism. In fact, a religion that praises pirates is a more natural fit for the theology originally written by Aristotle (tutor of famed pirate/emperor Alexander).
hahahaha
haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Ah, well.
Just for the sake of clarity, do you think it contradicts facts about the ‘natural’ meaning of “natural law”—about the rules that every smart human (or suitably extrapolated human) who cares about “being provident for itself and for others,” would agree with? Certainly if we assumed no such rules exist, that would contradict the ‘natural’ reading.
Thomism does feel self-consistent to me if I assume that every law comes from a medieval ruler or similar source. Now assume instead that pirates are divine beings. I’m thinking here of John “I Wanna Be a Pirate” Rackham, Anne Bonny, and Mary “Totally a Man” Read. See also “Kenpachi”.
That was also a joke? I do think you’d change your positive opinion of Thomism (v Pastafarianism) if you looked at all aspects of the situation.