Whats the point of life?

lannister the rich

Active Member
Apples and oranges. You can only get test answers correct or incorrect, not the test in its entirety. You're using the words "correct" and "incorrect" inaccurately. A test can either be passed or failed, and whether you pass or fail will depend on the specific criteria for that particular test. However, if the criteria is that getting 70% of the answers correct is necessary to pass, then you will absolutely fail if you only get 69% correct.
Flawed: Not all tests can be failed, an IQ test for example. There is no criteria to fail.

Criteria is predetermined because we view the world around us as binary. I already said that.

Umm...no, I'm not. I never said falling to the ground would kill you. It may, or it may not. But fall you will. Every time.
I would not fall if the building were floating in space. Therefore, I would not fall every time. And your statement therefore is inaccurate.

You seem to not understand what the argument is, so I’ll say it differently: There is an exception to everything, even this statement.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Active Member
Flawed: Not all tests can be failed, an IQ test for example. There is no criteria to fail.

Criteria is predetermined because we view the world around us as binary. I already said that.


I would not fall if the building were floating in space. Therefore, I would not fall every time. And your statement therefore is inaccurate.

You seem to not understand what the argument is, so I’ll say it differently: There is an exception to everything, even this statement.
Incalculable variables influence outcomes ... Which is why absolutes are unattainable outside of applied mathematics, which require permanently defined parameters.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Flawed: Not all tests can be failed, an IQ test for example. There is no criteria to fail.

Criteria is predetermined because we view the world around us as binary. I already said that.

I would not fall if the building were floating in space. Therefore, I would not fall every time. And your statement therefore is inaccurate.

You seem to not understand what the argument is, so I’ll say it differently: There is an exception to everything, even this statement.
You just make it up as you go, don't you?
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
You seem to not understand what the argument is, so I’ll say it differently: There is an exception to everything, even this statement.
No, there isn't. If you don't take in nourishment, you will die. And if I say blue, you will say gray or red or whatever color comes into your head, because you fail to understand even the basics of the universe you live in.
Flawed: Not all tests can be failed, an IQ test for example. There is no criteria to fail.
That is not a test, even though that is the common term used for it. It would be more accurate to call it a measuring tool. (And yes, a pass/fail test could also be called a measuring tool, but the purpose is not the same. Of course, I know you will argue even this because the acknowledgement of the existence of absolutes would interfere with your ego-centric view of the universe.)
 

lannister the rich

Active Member
You just make it up as you go, don't you?
Haven’t made anything up, yet. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it fictional.

No, there isn't. If you don't take in nourishment, you will die. And if I say blue, you will say gray or red or whatever color comes into your head, because you fail to understand even the basics of the universe you live in.

That is not a test, even though that is the common term used for it. It would be more accurate to call it a measuring tool. (And yes, a pass/fail test could also be called a measuring tool, but the purpose is not the same. Of course, I know you will argue even this because the acknowledgement of the existence of absolutes would interfere with your ego-centric view of the universe.)
You still don’t get it, so I guess we’re done here. There’s no way to explain it to you.

Both of your world views are restricted and closed-minded.

For everyone else, I’ll sign off with this. The purpose of life is to extend it as far as possible. What does that mean, you might ask? I’ll ask “For who?” For pretty much all life as we know it, except for humans, it means solely to reproduce and carry on the species.
Humans have more conscious brain power than merely sex. We build things: structures, clothes, and relationships. Animals have the ability to know and learn from one another. Humans have the ability to learn from one another and build from that knowledge. We pass on knowledge so that the next generation can build from that knowledge and start a better life than before. That’s why we are the apex species of this planet. Our minds need to change in order to grow. A stagnant mind is a stagnant species.

Understand that you can be wrong, and that’s okay. Yet at the same time, it’s not okay to be wrong if you do nothing about it. Learn. We would have never advanced as a society if we didn’t.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
No ... You were arrogant enough to think my comment could be appropriately addressed by your response ... And still are.
Aren’t we all? ;)
Death is certain: it is the only thing that is certain in life. How death occurs is not certain. Regardless, the statement is within the model of reality, not reality itself. It is an approximation, a hypothesis, that does not mean that it is absolutely false, it would merely be inaccurate.
I am certain I’m me and not you or a butterfly
If I got a 99% on a test, am I incorrect? The test? The score? Or did I answer one part of the test incorrectly? Does that make the entire thing incorrect? It does not. It makes it imperfect. Imperfect is not incorrect.
Yes you are 1% incorrect

Almost right isn’t right. A inch behind the winner in a race is a loss. It’d be like complaining you didn’t win a event building in FoE because of picking the least efficient prizes
Flawed: Not all tests can be failed, an IQ test for example. There is no criteria to fail.
i could fail to get the same result :p
I would not fall if the building were floating in space. Therefore, I would not fall every time. And your statement therefore is inaccurate.
The house I’m in is absolutely not floating in space

And if it was you’d die from lack of oxygen, lack of heat or plummeting through the atmosphere or being hit by an asteroid. We weren’t made for space
 

lannister the rich

Active Member
That's an ironic statement given your string of posts.
It's not, because I am not entirely wrong, nor am I entirely right. I am not attempting to be right, you are. Don't blame me because you fail to understand the argument.

I am certain I’m me and not you or a butterfly

Yes you are 1% incorrect

Almost right isn’t right. A inch behind the winner in a race is a loss. It’d be like complaining you didn’t win a event building in FoE because of picking the least efficient prizes
i could fail to get the same result :p

The house I’m in is absolutely not floating in space

And if it was you’d die from lack of oxygen, lack of heat or plummeting through the atmosphere or being hit by an asteroid. We weren’t made for space
Yet another person who does not understand the argument. You don't even realize that you are agreeing with me in the majority of this comment.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
If no one can understand what you're trying to say, maybe it's you? Just sayin'
He's wrong. The problem isn't that we don't understand what he's trying to say. The problem is we disagree with him and he can't refute our points. So the only recourse he has is to try to belittle our intelligence and act like he's the only one smart enough to have a legitimate grasp of the facts.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Yet another person who does not understand the argument. You don't even realize that you are agreeing with me in the majority of this comment.
You argued that there’s uncertainty in absolutes. Except that’s a fundamentally wrong statement as anything with uncertainty is not absolute
 

lannister the rich

Active Member
I’ve already explained it. I’m not belittling your intelligence: I’m bemoaning your knowledge on this matter. I’m not saying you can’t comprehend it: I’m saying you don’t. So, if you haven’t gotten it yet, then you don’t want to and you’ve proven that nothing I can say will change your mind on that. So, put it to rest already.

You argued that there’s uncertainty in absolutes. Except that’s a fundamentally wrong statement as anything with uncertainty is not absolute
Exactly, because there aren’t any absolutes except that life always ends with death, which we cannot conceptualize an alternative. There is no uncertainty with this that we can accurately visualize.
 
Last edited:

BlackSand the Sly

Active Member
It's not, because I am not entirely wrong, nor am I entirely right. I am not attempting to be right, you are. Don't blame me because you fail to understand the argument.


Yet another person who does not understand the argument. You don't even realize that you are agreeing with me in the majority of this comment.
Your ability to make the argument is as important as someone else’s ability to understand the argument.

Like the “inaccurate-incorrect” argument ...

When I am sighting in a rifle for accuracy at the range, that does not mean that I am wondering if I can hit the target (correct) or miss (incorrect) the target.

Accuracy ... Is not a hit or miss measure ... It is the measure of how close you come to the exact answer ... And how many variables you have eliminated.

Edit:
With accuracy there is another kicker ...;)

Accuracy is not the ability to hit the bullseye on the target ... It is the ability to put the bullet where you want it to go. The rifle is no less accurate if I put the bullet in the nail holding the target to the board ... If that is where I intended it to go.
 
Last edited: