mememe

silverxing兄,

或者我真係睇漏左一個或數個帖﹐因為我依家唔係成日有網﹐所以睇漏幾個一0的都唔出奇。等justin_lun兄返嚟我同佢再繼續啦。

第一:

當我話"點解自由意志存在"時﹐我唔係講緊"點解神要俾自由意志人類" (亦即係你所講既"为左人能够成功成为世界既管家"吧? 我好似冇拗過呢點噃。。。)。 我係講緊點解justin_lun兄認為自由意志確確實實存在于世上(亦即係我答既"種種選擇同舉動都會改變呢個世界既未來"﹐你睇睇番茄既比諭就會明0架喇)。

你講既係自由意志存在既動機﹐我講既係justin_lun兄認為自由意志存在既證據。你話我錯之前請睇清楚。。。

至于"并存"同"同时存在"既分別﹐如果你認為真係0甘重要既話﹐我都願聞其詳: 究竟有咩分別呢? 分別又係唔係大到"乱哂大笼"呢? 你唔講我仲以為并存同同时存在係同義0架0添。。。

我覆述完justin_lun兄既論點後﹐你指出以上兩點"錯誤"。第一點你睇完後請覆返我﹐第二點。。。第二點真係有0的。。。

請問依家你肯覆述我既論點未呢? 抑或你仲有籍口繼續拖。。。

第二:

有你幫我補補就好喇! 我幾驚冇人幫我補呀!

第一個推論係我錯。錯既原因係因為我唔應該用"="符, 否則就會成為"相等于"﹐然後就必需兩邊相等﹐所以唔成立。

第二個推論並冇錯。正如你所講﹐"全知"係神既一種特質﹐所以"神"必需係"全知"既subset。(即"神"∈"全知")。 就如"幼兒哺乳"係狗既特質﹐所以"狗"必需係"哺乳類"既subset。(即"狗"∈"哺乳類" )。

我話All As are B (神係全知)就如All Dogs are Mammals﹐或All Mothers are Women (注意:women係特質﹐因為mother係women既subset)。

至于你話"应该用->符号A->B，哲学上既讲法 All A are B同All A=B系一样架！"﹐我希望你揾資料證明呢點。我想你解釋一下如果All A are B同All A=B 係一樣既話﹐0甘A ∈ B點解呢? 熟讀哲學既你大概唔會對"∈"陌生吧!

全知既物體唔會警告亞當唔好食禁果

你試0下解釋全知全善既神明知亞當會食禁果都造佢出嚟呢個可能性。

等如你话“意志上不能选择”，其实就已经否定左自由意志，唔会话你唔用“自由意志”个term就唔否定。

如果你認為全知既"知道你會揀乜﹐知道你唔會揀乜"係否定0左自由意志﹐我仲使講咩呢?

mememe

silverxing兄﹐

阿justin_lun讲既根本就系“點解神要俾自由意志人類”，你就当左系人地讲紧“人点解要有自由意志”

你0甘講完全係斷章取義。你係唔係同我講話當justin_lun兄同我討論既時候佢冇講到點解佢覺得有自由意志? 我隨手都可以揾到幾個例子去駁回呢點。 齎係睇番茄比諭既辨駁已經知道justin_lun兄係解釋緊點解佢認為自由意志確實存在。你無理取鬧。

而"并存"同"同时存在"既分別，明明就系你明白唔到阿justin_lun讲既野，所以你先觉得唔紧要。

你呢句完全係廢話。有嘢你就講﹐唔好懶係神秘0甘。既然你覺得0甘重要﹐0甘你講出"并存"同"同时存在"既分別吧。

我唔系话你讲既野错，系话你根本做唔到复述阿justin_lun D point呀！

你講既兩點所謂"錯誤"都已經被我駁回。你一係就俾證據﹐一係就唔好再無理取鬧。你齎講就只有廢話。

你用All A are B代表神系全知既话，就代表任何人一改自己个名做“神”都会变成全知！用A ∈ B反而可以，但系就即刻变成特定个案，意思完全唔同。

根本就係。如果我話All Gods are Omniscient﹐所有既神都會係全知既subset﹐即所有神都會被我歸納為全知既物體 - 不過﹐唔係齎係名稱上﹐而係實際上。

你完全冇解釋到"A ∈ B"係點解。我對你哲學既認識嚴重存疑。

连我E个唔多睇圣经既人都知圣经话全知既神警告左亚当唔好食禁果啦！白纸黑字写明架！你E个No C are B点讲都唔会成立。[quote]

你既結論係由定論(dogma)引出﹐而唔係從邏輯結論出﹐你用定論嚟到反駁邏輯推理實在錯得太離普喇。

[quote]我自问唔识答，费事乱讲。但系“意志上不能选择”又点会有自由意志呀！始终唔明你个机械人比喻点可以成立。

唔明就唔好話人錯。俾個機會你睇多兩次﹐真係唔明就問我啦!

mememe

silverxing兄,

因公事煩忙﹐延遲回覆﹐敬請原諒。

mememe

silverxing兄,

唔。。。我究竟應唔應該用英文作答呢?

you have provide no evidence whatsoever.....

For your so-called evidence, the analogy of tomatoes,

即係呢﹐如果你對我俾既證據唔滿意既話﹐0甘就即係等同我冇俾到任何證據? 你仲好意思話我同你一樣冇俾證據既?

讀哲學既果然不同凡響 - 讀三個paragraph就有矛盾。

justin_lun already said the following words in the very first few posts, "God created us to be servant and take care of this world." He even provide Bible verse for support, and if you read page 5 of this forum carefully, shinge1233 ask justin_lun the usage of freedom of will, justin_lun answered, "God give us free will to let us take care of this world more efficiently." He's talking about "why God give us free will", not "why human have free will". And as Christian, justin_lun only answer of "why human have free will" is "because God give it to us".

係噃! 真係頭幾個帖噃! 你講緊既係0響我都未出聲之前﹐justin_lun兄同第二個人討論緊0的同我之後既帖一0的關係都冇既論點。

http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthr ... 6%E5%92%8C%E8%8F%AF

你睇唔睇到我係第十七個帖先開聲﹐而我講既0野係有關"全知","全能",和"造物主"的規限內依然可以存在真正自由既自由意志。對于點解神俾自由意志人呢點﹐我好似冇俾到意見噃。

我同justin_lun兄既討論從來未踏足過點解神俾自由意志人呢點﹐你要求我覆述時竟然質疑點解我唔帶出呢點﹐你有冇覺得你既評語有0的無聊?

For your so-called evidence, the analogy of tomatoes, justin_lun reply, "there're way too many unknown reason for why the tomatoes can't grow, there's no such thing as given certain resource and the outcome will be unchanged." What justin_lun is talking here is why Fatalism is wrong, it has NOTHING to do with free will. You evidence doesn't even match the topic.

如果你認為justin_lun兄講既0野(即你所講既”why Fatalism is wrong”)同自由意志冇任何關係﹐你好明顯冇睇到我寫既全部帖。請覆述我既論點 -尤其有關"全知","全能",和"造物主"的規限內依然可以存在真正自由既自由意志。

喺你再批評任何嘢之前﹐我再次要求你覆述我既論點。你既評語顯出你對我既論點一無所知。

For the difference of "exist as the same time" and "co-existence", justin_lun once said the following, "God's power to know all is an ability, while free will is a promise. God can choose whether to use his ability or not, but he must keep his promise. Thus God need to give free will higher priority than knowing everything." Despite it is correct or not, we can see here free will and knowing everything is 2 unrelated things. The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one. Thus we will say man and women "co-exist" together in this world, but we won't say human and snake co-exist in this world. Man and woman need each other to exist, but man and snake don't need each other. For the power to know all and free will, they simply exist as part of what God is, but they're unrelated, thus have no neccessity of one another for each one of their existence. It's importance because we'll need to clarify the property of both characteristic of God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coexistence

你知唔知乜0野係指鹿為馬?
你知唔知乜0野係掩耳賭鈴?

你竟然嘗試辯駁並存(coexist)同同時存在(exist simultaneously)有分別。講真﹐你若然做到既話﹐黑都可以變白﹐彎都可以變直喇。

再講﹐呢句The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one 根本就係謊言 - 俾證據吧!

Even in the court of law, each lawyer only need to provide their own side of view, asking another side to clarify your own point is unthinkable.

係呀﹐但係我依家懷疑你完全冇消化到我0的point噃。我甚至存疑你究竟有冇睇到我既論點。我唔係要你clarify我既論點﹐而係要你講出你對我既論點有幾了解。叫你覆述只不過係搬字過紙﹐好難委你咩? 抑或你真係對我既論點一竅不通所以諸多推搪?

NOT all God are omniscient! In Greek mythology, Egypt, and other religions and countries who has more than one God in their believes, most of their Gods are NOT omniscient! It's wrong in basic concept to say all God are omniscient.

你知唔知乜0野係基本假設? 我既然討論緊一個唯神論既宗教(基督教)﹐當然就要假設只有基督教既神0架啦! 喺0甘既情況下﹐”All god” 都只係得一個咋嘛。如果冇唯神論既假設﹐我劈頭第一句就挑戰基督教既dogma啦!

silverxing﹐你又話你讀哲學既? 你真唔知定假唔知呀?

Second, in what way you can prove "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? Every basic information for logical analysis need to be completely true to start with. You can't provide even one bit of support for "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"

呢個point有support, 就係全善(Omnibenevolence)。如果神知道亞當會食禁果而做佢出嚟﹐神就冇可能係全善(請參考justin_lun兄尾幾個帖)。

如果神實際上知亞當會食禁果但係扮唔知﹐佢就會擔上deceiver(誤導者)既罪命。

如果神實際上唔知亞當會食禁果﹐佢就冇可能係全知。

Last but not least, for A ∈ B, YOU are the one whose using it. Doesn't you need to know how it use? I'm only pointing out what you use wrong. Do you mean now I am responsible to explain everything in philosophy to you? and for what? to "prove I'm really know philosophy"? From what we have so far, you're the one making all the logical mistake here, what makes you qualify to judge how good my philosophy is? When you want to learn something from someone, the proper and decent way to do is ask NICELY!

哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈! 實在可笑。你講得一針見血﹐我就係要你"prove you really know philosophy"。我由用”∈”符號到link site解釋呢個符號點解同埋點解我0甘用都用0左幾個帖。你做唔到咩?

乜你寧願打五句去解釋點解你唔想解釋都唔寧願打一句去解釋清楚? 我對我既質疑越嚟越深信不疑。。。

再講﹐我喺呢個論壇上淨係計之前俾過既link都夠0西解釋”∈”符號既用法。講到learn something from someone﹐你又作出過乜0野知識上既供獻呢?

同你講0左0甘耐﹐請你俾證據你又唔俾﹐請你覆述你又唔覆﹐請你解釋你又唔解﹐真係好冇癮。你再唔攞出真才實學﹐唔好怪我請admin出嚟評評理。

mememe

Silverxing兄,

第一: 你話我無法正確覆述justin_lun既論點係錯誤。你之前指出幾個你認為我覆述上既錯誤以經被我駁回﹐亦即係話我既覆述冇錯。由此可見﹐請justin_lun覆述我之前既論點並唔係你所講0甘難(甚至無法做到)。如果你認為你既大呼小叫依然有立錐之地既話﹐請你從新指出我對justin_lun論點覆述上既錯誤。你之前既所為"錯誤"根本就係無事生非!

第二: MY INTENTION IS TO STATE WHY IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO ASK OTHERS TO REPEAT YOUR POINT。。。 I ONLY WANT TO TELL YOU IT'S WRONG TO REPEAT OTHERS POINT

我鬧緊既就係呢個完全無稽既intention!!

我發表完我既觀點之後﹐如果其他人問或帶起既問題反映出佢(哋)對我既論點一竅不通﹐我當然會問佢(哋)有冇睇清楚我既帖。

如果對方答"有"﹐但依然繼續問或帶起一0的只要有稍為望過0下我0的帖都識答既問題﹐我當然會質疑對方究竟有冇睇清楚及消化我帖既內容。

請對方覆述自己既論點可以減少誤解同增加共識﹐根本就再practical不過。

只有本身冇理解到對方既論點就隨便批評別人既人先至會無能力覆述對方既論點而需要諸多推搪。你同justin_lun兄喺呢方面實在相似。

第三: But from your application of the logical analysis, you're using them incorrectly. Even yourself admit that, Even yourself admit that.

你搞錯0左一樣嘢。我承認我喺帶出我既推論時用錯表達方式﹐但並唔代表我既推論有任何錯誤。我note緊既唔係你既correct analysis﹐因為你冇。你做到既就只係(再一次)批評我已經修改0左既論點﹐同埋批評我請justin_lun覆述我論點呢個要求(到依家你仍然冇辦法講出究竟點解0甘難)。

你都識講啦﹐YOU POST THE CORRECT WEBSITE BUT USING IT WRONG WHILE I POST NO WEBSITE BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE﹐你話你啱﹐0甘你就啱0架喇咩? 你冇俾過任何證據證明你講既任何一句說話唔係順口開河(例如: The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one)。你指控我用錯我既link入面既資料﹐你除0左齎講之外又有冇解釋到我點用錯法呢?

你0的含糊既論點相對于justin_lun兄真係有過之而無不及。睇睇呢段"解釋":

你用All A are B代表神系全知既话，就代表任何人一改自己个名做“神”都会变成全知！用A ∈ B反而可以，但系就即刻变成特定个案，意思完全唔同。

點解用A ∈ B反而可以呢? 乜解究會變成特定个案呢? 講開又講﹐乜嘢係"特定个案"呢? 意思又點變成"完全唔同"呢? 受過哲學教育既人又點會寫埋0西0的0甘含糊又冇建設性既嘢呢?

係唔係好含糊呢? 你係唔係唔係好知講緊乜嘢呢? 你解釋0下好噃!

第四: In the view of the whole filter-004ion, the freedom of will is related with whether fatalism is correct or not...THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL.

呢0的咪叫主觀咯! 你用緊聖經記載, 無法辯駁既教義(dogma)自由意志(Freedom of will)嚟到推斷理論(宿命論)既可信性。正確做法係用可以辯駁既理論(theory)嚟到證實或推翻教義。就好似話"聖經記載有大洪水﹐所以可以由此斷定數千年前既水位同天氣狀況"係錯既 - 正確做法係應該用理論推論出數千年前既水位同天氣狀況﹐從而證實或推翻聖經既記載。你依家知道乜嘢係本末倒置啦?

番茄既比諭絕對有牽涉到自由意志既真偽 - 就係如果神既全知包括所有事情既連帶關係﹐而神既全能包括創世時既因素﹐人(即殺手)既自由意志就會被剝削。

你依家開始明白為何"神點解俾自由意志俾人"同我既理論完全無關未?

I'M THE ONE ACTUALLY GIVING EVIDENCE HERE WHILE YOU ONLY REPEATING YOUR OWN VIEW WITH NONE OF HIS WORDS AT ALL.

你既"證據"同我哋討論既話題無關。聖經記載"神點解俾自由意志俾人"完全唔會影晌到我既推論﹐因為同我講既嘢無關。你依家俾緊我既係一個strawman argument(熟讀哲學既你﹐大概知道呢樣係乜吧)。

第五: As long as one can find an exception in the example, you CANNOT use the word "all"! You doubting me not knowing philosophy? Should I post a link here about the use of the word "all" here to prove what I said is correct?

好。我由原本既”All gods are omniscient” 改為”All Christian gods are omniscient” - 本質一成不變。(你鐘意話Christian god 係三位一體而所以唔應該用”all” 既話﹐我就改做”all forms of Christian god are omniscient”)

第六: Double negative is NOT allow in logical analysis. I don't think you know, so I'll make it clear. One of the most basic rule of logical analysis. When you see 2 or more "no" in a sentence of logical analysis. That sentence is simply WRONG and need to rephase!

Now, should I again post a philosophy website to prove the previous rule are correct? Or do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.

你唔使揾philosophy website去證明你啱﹐因為你唔會揾到。


http://entrypoints.com/AhaPage/Aha!DoubleNegs.html
http://web.linix.ca/pedia/index.php/Double_negative_elimination
http://www.jimloy.com/language/double.htm
http://www.isoeasy.org/Logic.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search? ... nG=Search&meta=

你放” logic double negative” 入Google﹐頭五個link都有記載Double Negative, 全部都冇話logic唔用得。你話”simply wrong”? 你讀咩philosophy0架?

你既斷言開始越嚟越順口開河﹐你仲厚顏到話” do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.”。

隻手遮天﹐賊喊捉賊叫得0甘大聲﹐真係明欺26FUN無人。

第七: We're talking what justin_lun saying, not what mememe saying, right? "Repeating justin_lun point of view correctly" is the topic, right?

0甘你不如將justin_lun兄喺其他論壇既帖link埋出嚟﹐然後指控我冇覆述到justin_lun對時事﹐經濟﹐文化﹐音樂﹐運動﹐等等既睇法? 佢同第二個人講0的同我無關既嘢你都要我覆述﹐你冇嘢吧? 就算係覆述﹐都係覆述”題內話”﹐ 你扯到牛頭唔答馬嘴既話題做乜? 你rest your case? 乜你有咩?



P.S. 你有冇發覺每當你發現自己既斷言有錯(例如"同時存在"既論點)﹐你就會放棄呢點然後轉移目標對第二點咬住唔放。到我解釋完第二點既時候﹐你就會對第三點死纏爛打。你無聊時無理地糊亂評擊其他人既帖已經好冇禮貌﹐你知錯之後唔改又唔道歉就真係好冇品。

你既言論已經顯露0左你又幾多斤兩。唔好再盲目0甘批評一0的挑戰你信仰或價值觀﹐但你又冇膽量接觸既理論。係要評論既﹐就首先熟讀對方既論點﹐用證據推翻對方既論說。你識英文﹐大概知道religious bigot點解吧?

我上個帖喺幾個地方要求你俾證據。你冇做到。如果你有誠意繼續討論既話﹐請你先為你既斷言加上證據支持。

mememe

Silverxing兄,

第一: “The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will” 同埋” 我同justin_lun兄既討論” 無任何牽連。所以我覆述justin_lun既論點時唔需要提及“The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will”。亦即係話你認為我既覆述因為冇提及The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will所以一定”唔明得哂人地讲乜”(post 269)係廢話。

You intention is to aruge whether my post is correct or not. But what I do is simply REPEATING JUSTIN_LUN WORDS AND WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST.

錯。你敢話呢句”THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL”係justin_lun兄講既? 我上個帖第四點用0左成個paragraph去話俾你聽你呢句有幾錯。你仲敢咩都推0西落justin_lun身上? 哼! 除非你係justin_lun啦!

Then you(mememe) said, "you(silverxing) cannot said Fatalism is wrong, because of .....(what you said)".

我有咩? 乜我同你有討論過宿命論咩? 乜我有同你講過呢句咩? Quote我呀?! 口講無憑呀!

I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, "I'm not here to argue religious problem! That's not what I intend to do here!!!" Yet, you keep asking me to repeat your point, stating what you've said is correct, and arguing about religious problem.

你喺一個宗教論壇同我講話你唔係討論緊”religious problem”認真一絕。你就算係用邏輯為基本(雖然你唔係)你都冇可能話你唔係arguing religious problem。你冇講及Freedom of Will咩? 你冇提及omniscience咩? 你除0左識得一邊話自己唔係討論緊religious problem而又一邊討論religious problem之外你仲識咩?

講到0甘淺你都唔明我就真係幫你唔到。

It's almost impossible to repeat others' point of view. If you(mememe) really want others to do it, how about you do it first and show everyone it is possible?

你再次講出我喺post258既覆述有咩問題罷啦! 你指出既” 問題”我早就解釋0左喇。再講唔出就承認你無理取鬧啦!

Here, I need to confess. I've made a trap in this argument, to simply trick you!

No matter it's exist at the same time or co-exist, both are NOT what justin_lun said!!!!

The difference between "co-exist" and "exist the same time"? I simply make it up, just to make you stand strong on the argument "justin_lun think Freedom of will and Omniscience exist the same time".

第一: 你可以唔使讀哲學喇。你既”橫蠻無理拳”同”無賴神功”已經練到登峰造極﹐天下無敵。無論面對任何靠”邏輯”或”道理”既對手﹐對方都註定一敗塗地﹐因無奈而七竅噴血而死。

第二: 其實講真﹐你寫過既0甘多個帖﹐邊一編唔係”a trap”嚟到”trick me” 0架? 你講過既0甘多個論點同證據﹐邊一樣唔係你”simply make it up” 0架?

第三: 如果”老吹”都唔算係”無理批評別人”﹐我真係唔知點先算”無理”。

"All form of Christian Gods are omniscient." All A ∈ B, now that's correct. But may I add a footnote. It's totally different from "all Gods are omniscient." Please don't think they're the same, because they're not.

With reference to my argument兩者一模一樣 。請解釋點解” totally different”。

You'll see that you need to "eliminate" double negative before you ever start an logical analysis. The proper term is called "The Law of Double Negation"

“Need to”? 邊個話一定要0架? “The Law of Double Negation” 係話”可以”(can), 唔係”必需”(need)。 你憑”可以”就結論出”必需”﹐有冇搞錯? 再問多次: 你讀咩哲學0架?

How did you explain your ignoration of the fault on "No Omnicient being will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"?

EASY. 如下:

他(mememe)不斷用“神的全知”來支持宿命論﹐卻故意忽略了宿命論根本違背了“神的全善”﹐若神早知人必定吃禁果而不去阻止﹐神就根本不是全善﹗

(Post 199 by Justin_lun)
http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthr ... ghlight=&page=4

mememe

給眼睛雪亮的有緣人﹐

所有有緣讀到這帖的讀者﹐請聽我一言。我從這論壇討論中穫益良多。最大得著就是能夠親身體驗到人類的無恥。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會當街當巷(互聯網上)掩耳盜鈴﹐亦無見識過任何人會厚顏無恥到用其僅有的知識拋書包﹐充智囊﹐被發現後還無賴到不停以謊言來自完其說。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會因本身的主觀信念而隻手遮天﹐以為全世界人都如自己一搬井底之蛙﹐對自己相信的事不聞不問﹐對可能否決自己信念的事因恐懼而拒絕接觸﹐對其他敵對既觀點因信念不加思索就判以無理。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會逃避問題逃得如此狼狽﹐被問時支唔以對﹐被追問時耍太極轉移話題﹐被追得急時索性拒絕回答視若無睹﹐或無中生有招搖撞騙。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會說"你沒可能覆述我說的話"。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會說"並存"異於"同時存在"。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何修讀哲學之人會對哲學一竅不通﹐連邏輯之基本也未明便邀請他人向他"討教"。

以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會如此不屑於認錯﹐寧願用謊言粉飾也無勇氣承認錯誤。


或許我在描述某人﹐又或者我在形容自己﹐不過有緣人啊! 請你別憑我一面之詞就妄下結論。我在此虛心請求你能花費你寶貴的時間去閱遍整編討論﹐研究每個重點﹐然後用你的智慧作出一個客觀的結論。或許在你當中會有人感受到我的經歷。

mememe上。