Old 01-13-2011, 10:34 PM   #241
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Jerry, what the fuck is your point? Are you insisting that we should believe in the existence of an undefineable "it?" Why should we do that and what about that fact that you choose to do that makes you a better human being than anyone else here?

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2011, 10:59 PM   #242
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
What would the magical unicorns actually account for, or what would they help explain?
The same as your pathetic religion you cunt. That's the fucking point retard.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2011, 11:03 PM   #243
lostsheep
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,902
In terms of man made objects, distinction b/w 'why vs. how" are relevant, for example: why were the pyramids built vs. how were the pyramids built. "Why" generally implies a purpose which implies a creator, and is anthropomorphic in origin, but this is not a necessary assumption for the natural world. It is natural for people to ask "why" something is thus, b/c human brains work this way: it's called anthropomorphism.

However, just because our minds think like this does not mean that's how the universe actually works. In fact, the "why vs. how" distinction in regard to natural phenomena is blurred. You could ask "how did craters on the moon come to exist?" or "why does the moon have craters?" Neither Q in this case is strictly correct or incorrect. Similarly, you can ask why it is that giraffes have long necks. One answer could be: so they can reach taller trees. Or, you could say that they evolved long necks because it was a survival advantage. "Why vs. how" is just semantics in regard to the natural world, not some critical difference in thought process.

"If God inspired the Bible, why is it such a piece of shit?" (Kaziglu Bey)
lostsheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2011, 11:50 PM   #244
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The “it” is something I consider to be possible , which can account for something which is potentially unknowable
So, in summary, an undefined thing that may or may not be a thing may or may not exist in order to explain something that may or may not be the case, but we do not know and may never know whether it is or is not the case, and thus we may never know whether or not this undefined non/thing is even necessary?

You're right. That's not bullshit. It's utterly meaninglessness.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
You choose to dismiss the why on a whim...
No, I choose to dismiss your claim that a why is required because you have not shown me evidence that a why is required.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
...yet it has not been scientifically proven that a why is not required...
The fact that I was able to suggest a scenario in which a why is not required shows that a why is not required.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that your undefined thing that may or may not be a thing actually is required.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
You’ve voluntarily cornered your conclusion by accepting only answering the how’s as it’s meet occam’s razor.
I've answered only the questions that have been shown to exist. The universe exists, so a "how" is, in fact, required, since the universe reached its current state by some kind of mechanism.

I have also demonstrate that a why is not required, and thus I feel no need to provide an answer to a question that does not necessarily exist.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
John baked a cake, but then John has died.
Your analogy presupposes your conclusion.

You have deliberately chosen an analog to represent the universe (in this case, a "cake") which we know to require a creator (in this case, "John"). But the universe is unlike a cake in that you haven't shown that the universe requires a creator. At best, you've proposed an undefined "it" that you admit you have no evidence to support.

[quote=selliedjoup]So why did John bake the cake? Your position would state there is no why, as here is the cake.[/color]
My position is more aptly described as:

There is a crater on the moon. The planet from which the meteorite originated was destroyed in a supernova. Why did the planet send the meteorite to form the crater?

You surely must agree that there is no "why." Neither the planet nor the meteorite were intelligent agents capable of doing anything within intention.

The crater, like the universe, has an entirely naturalistic explanation that requires no "why."

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Provide full proof of the cause of the universe...
Again: I've provided an scenario that demonstrates a universe without a "cause." The universe never began. It always was.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Until then, your position will only be an alternative.
But it will remain a more plausible, likely, and reasonable alternative than yours.

And, unlike yours, it enjoys the benefit of being defined.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
One can choose to use science as the only means if one is only seeking an answer to the how’s.
Not necessarily.

Scientific methodology can be applied to "whys," but the only "whys" that to be found regard the motivations behind behaviors carried out by intelligent beings acting with purpose.

If you are proposing that your undefined "it" is an answer to a "why" question, then you are further defining "it." "It," along with being male (and, therefore, having a penis) must now also be an intelligent entity that acts for a purpose.

You see, despite insisting that you make no claims about your potential undefined "it," the things you say around "it" require certain attributes about it.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
You, of course, realise for something to be complete would require time?
Perhaps in the physics of the known universe.

But you can't make statements about what a process occurring within the unknown physics of a gravitational singularity, since they are "beyond our current comprehension."

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Given the alternative does not answer the question, I wouldn’t call it valid.
The fact that my alternative does not require your intelligent male "it" does not mean that it doesn't answer the question.

Given that it explains the origin of the universe, it is as valid as your proposal, and more parsimonious to boot.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
And how do you know this?
Do you understand "hows" and "whys" differently?

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
No because I make no claims about it.
But you do. It is male, since you call it a "he." It is intelligent, since you propose it as an answer to a "why" question, implying that it acts with purpose.

You may believe that you make no claims, but your words tell another story.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
You choose to work on the assumption all we know, entails all of what exists.
So when I said that I would guess that we don't know all there is to know, you assumed that I meant that I thought we did know all there is to know?

How did you draw the opposite conclusion from my words?

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Yes but you don’t know it. So it only becomes an alternative for a point where the universe may have ‘begun’.
I guess I have to say this again.

I described a scenario in which the universe did not "begin" at all. It always existed.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
...it eventually requires an uncaused cause.
Unless the universe did not begin, in which case it requires no cause at all.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
I will define nmm as potentially an uncaused cause.
That's odd, since you said in post #221 of this thread that:

"I can't reconcile an uncaused cause"

Can you reconcile an uncaused cause, or not? Or can you only reconcile one if it lacks any definition, except that it is male, intelligent, and uncaused?

[quote=selliedjoup]Are you proposing that once we understand the singularity that all will be understood?[/color]
I'm proposing that it might be.

Prove that it won't be.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
So if the universe has always existed it’s existed for an infinite number of cyclical rebirths. How did we get to the point of now, if infinity has been before us?
Are you proposing that time cannot progress on an infinite scale?

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The full picture won’t be in our lifetime...
Is this something you know, or something you dreamed up?

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
...so I would prefer to view it as the glass is half full.
Half full of what? Undefined male intelligent uncaused "its"?

Why make assumptions with incomplete information. Given that we don't know how much we don't know, the likelihood that your assumption is incorrect approaches absolute certainty.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The difference is I assume there could be a why.
Precisely. You assume one.

Wishful thinking defined.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
to be continued...
Not to be impolite, but don't bother.

We're just going to keep going `round and `round on this infinitely regressive carousel that might or might not exist.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:52 AM   #245
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
"debating" with jerry is like punching a bucket of shit, without even a niblet of corn for your trouble.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 07:32 AM   #246
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Yes, Jerry does resemble a bucket of shit, but I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying Anthony's pummeling of said bucket, corn or no corn.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 07:39 AM   #247
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,581

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 07:43 AM   #248
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
No corn, I see.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 08:23 AM   #249
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
Jerry is reserving the corn for his grand butt-sputtering finale.

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:20 AM   #250
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
Yes, Jerry does resemble a bucket of shit, but I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying Anthony's pummeling of said bucket, corn or no corn.

Ditto

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:34 AM   #251
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
I'm mildly amused by my own slippery grip on the English language.

Six mistakes in post #244, not including formatting errors? Sad...

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 03:01 PM   #252
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,581
You've a long way to go to match Jerry's 65 glaring goofs in this thread so far.

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 03:05 PM   #253
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote View Post
You've a long way to go to match Jerry's 65 glaring goofs in this thread so far.
And that's just the errors in logic. If we start counting grammatical errors, we'll be here all week.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 02:13 AM   #254
selliedjoup
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote View Post

Do you understand "hows" and "whys" differently?
It's a shame you pick and choose selected parts of what I've written and don't bother to address others.

I view hows and whys differently as they're different.
selliedjoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 02:25 AM   #255
selliedjoup
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Simoon wrote View Post
It's not that you have a different opinion, it's that you don't understand the atheist position.

And the frustrating thing is, that you've been corrected repeatedly by many here.

Here's a perfect example. Where did I ever say that I claim absolute certainty. In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite.

Here's a short list by me and others:

Do you have a reading comprehensions problem? Do you have a problem with the concepts quoted above?
I understand perfectly what you claim your Atheism to be, but if you didn't present your beliefs with such aversion to those who don't agree with you I'd believe you. Until then I'm calling bullshit.

You use this position as some "get out of jail free card" but you don't apply it all times, only when your supposed neutrality is questioned.

I really consider this group to be the biggest bunch of conceited wankers I've come across on net forums, and that's saying something.
selliedjoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational