[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

You’ve missed the point again and I even outlined it for you. Let’s try again.

You have no point, that much has been abundanlty clear from the beginning.

selliedjoup wrote

This thing called "Flanbo" has no purpose, while I did not give the first cause a name and its purpose was a first cause.

Not giving something a name, while arbitrarily assigning a circular-logic purpose is the trick then?
OK, Flanbo are no longer called Flanbo, and their purpose is to create black holes. I don't want to give them a name, so let's refer to them as "black-hole creators". So, what are your thoughts on my proposed "black-hole creators" who have no name, and whose purpose is creating black holes?

selliedjoup wrote

The fact that I object with the same argument to Flanbo as you do to a first cause, however the reason why you object is not the same as mine.

If it's the same argument, then it's the same reason. Otherwise, it's a different argument.

selliedjoup wrote

If you agree that they’re not the same, you may be able to fathom why the rationale would be different when objecting. Using the same words or phrasing to object to two different things does not equate to objecting for the same reason, but in your mind they seem to be. You got it yet dummy?

I don't agree they're not the same. In fact, they're almost identical, except that you don't want to name yours.

selliedjoup wrote

You always do it. You require a first cause to be defined, and if it cannot be defined (or is unknowable) it is the same as nothing as there is no requirement to negate something undefined such as a ‘"first cause".

Keep repeating this strawman and, maybe, one day, it will come true.

selliedjoup wrote

Wait are you now claiming Flanbo is the star shitting penguin? I think you’re confused again.

All of the concepts, including your first cause, are interchangeable. Do try to keep up.
Wait, did you think that the name we give to these concepts makes a difference?

selliedjoup wrote

I only hope you’re aware of how feeble the star shitting analogy is, but to you it seems to be highly relevant. It’s a sad reflection of your position that you require such a ridiculous and contradictory thing for your point to be made. It says a lot about the Atheist viewpoint though.

I would only hope you would see how feeble your attempts at defending your first cause while dismissing similarly silly concepts are, but, alas, it is not to be.

I noticed you forgot to answer this question.

I wrote

So, what did your first cause do to create the universe?

So, any ideas?

selliedjoup wrote

I would guess "some sort of intelligence" would be present. Perhaps it a first cause, perhaps it create existence, or perhaps it’s caused something else which created existence etc. Like I said , I don’t know.

And, explain again, how does this "some sort of intelligence" get around not having to have a cause.

selliedjoup wrote

I just haven’t discounted the possibility of it as I use the Anthropic principle and First Cause arguments, both lead to me to not discounting it.

And that is where it all started going wrong for you.

selliedjoup wrote

And like you desperately want me to state lean towards a first cause due to logic.

Logic has nothing to do with it.

selliedjoup wrote

You’re welcome to restrict your view to all that science can offer, but you have no basis for doing so.

Sure I do, for the purposes of evaluating asinine claims with no foundation in reality.

selliedjoup wrote

You need to invoke something beyond our understanding and account for the high improbability of life.

No, I don't. Are you serious, are you coming at me now with the improbability of life?

selliedjoup wrote

You’re like a kid with his fingers in his ears yelling "no".

Is that what you used to do when your daddy made you suck on his "big lollipop"?

selliedjoup wrote

find it funny that you think I don’t see, but this is due to a limited functioning and/or wishful thinking on your part.

You accusing me of wishful thinking is absolutely priceless. It reminds me why I still bother with you.

(continued below)