[selliedjoup]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

Why say "even Remotely"

To emphasise the point that nothing I said came close to what you thought I said. It was used to indiciate the amount by which you missed the point. Granted it is hyperbole, but it was in context.

I said Essentially because I AM AGNOSTIC. it could exist. But as far as logic and science are concerned: Its not.

Essentially adds nothing to a true or false statement. It's like saying "2+2 = essentially 4".

What does "its not" mean? It doesn't exist? Logic does not demonstrate anything of the sort, in fact based on logic the opposite could easily be said. Science has a limited role, and only illustrates your requirement for science to determine whether it is true or false. Oddly, your logic seems to be based on scientific evidence, so you may as well disregard the inclusion of logic as a prerequisite for your conclusion.

So you admit that it's a faith issue and cannot be proved?

A faith in what? You have faith in believing science and your logic may answer the question.

Fair enough. Congrats for you. You're forwarding a belief with lack of evidence.

I'm proposing it as an option, not as my belief. You refuse to accept it as a possibility as everything must be observable.

And Please do me a favor and don't talk down to me.

Try not to get your knickers in a twist sweetie.
That's all anyone does in this type of discussion, don't take it personally. I get told I'm a moron as I don't think the same as many here. I find it moronic that many here restrict their beliefs (and logic) based on science.

I re-read it please elaborate what you mean without writing it off with a pejorative

The difference between a unknowable first cause and an uncaused universe are different as one is impossible to define as it can not be determined or defined (apart from being a first cause). An uncaused universe is defined as it requires the universe to be eternal, which in turn makes an observer look towards scientific evidence and use of logic to the existence of an eternal evidence. Or if the universe just began without reason, then causality must be dismissed.
Any form of explanation is different to something which cannot be known, that's why it's different

I'm Sorry...did you say explanation I Devised? As IN I created them? Pulled them out my ass ...well that's very interesting

Why are you asking me to repeat something I've written? I didn't stutter. You use science to reach a conclusion on a topic it does not address.

Actually the whole idea of the burden of proof has been made FOR A WHILE. Its basic logic actually. And yes the Burden Is On you.

The whle crux of your perspective is based on the evidence you require, and the form of evidence which you will accept. I don't care that you think it is on me.

If its a faith Issue: Great for you. that's nice just don't say it's an objective fact. Because its not.

As is yours. Just don't say yours is objective as it's based on science. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what science is.

So you're saying you can use a word to define itself. "You're a Bunghole Bunghole"-Butthead.
Fantastic.

You seem to miss the point and have a tendency to view a post in isolation and out of context. You asked for a reason why something defined and undefined were different. I then said something defined and undefined are different. To me,it would be like saying black and white are different. I don't think this requires an explanation, but you require one. You're welcome to present your persepctive on why something undefined and defined require an exaplanation to account for their differences.

why doesn't it require an explanation? I mean assuming you're correct this is THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVER EVER. Shouldn't we have evidence for it? I mean Dear GOD (Blasphemy and for you) how dare you hold back this information from us. LET US GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF THEM ALL.

It's not that it doesn't require an explanation, it may just be impossible to obtain. Of course, back you go to requesting evidence. If you can account for existence with evidence, then another explanation is not required. Until then you're just pissing into the wind.

Your sarcarm is really misdirected on me.

...You mean LIke a Made Up Man in the Sky. Or a Religious text the first half of which has been written by about four misc. people and then the latter half written by a series of writers altering a popular prophet's history in order to adhere to a "Prophecy".

I don't think it would be a man, nor be in the sky. The rest of your bible rant is irrelevant to anything I consider to be true or have said.

This argument is going in circles. Why? Because this is a total faith issue. You can't provide evidence yet you insist there is. However if there isn't that means this is faith. Belief without evidence.

The thing I enjoy most about discussing this with the Atheist here is the failure to recognise the faith required to accept their position. If you are convinced that science must be able to provide an answer to a cause of existence. And if you don't think that science must be able to answer this question, why do you place any value when attempting to answer this question.

Many here like to use Bertrand Russell's teapot as an example. You could also use "One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did" to illustrate your level of faith in science.