Groundhog's day

[ghoulslime]

...and Jerry falls bottom bitch to yet another vigorous humping of his masochistic ass! Sigh!

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

I'm not asking you to disprove my nebulous magic man, I'm asking you to prove that the he is "not required".

Of your "nm[m]," you admit that "I’m not saying it does exist, I’m saying it might exist."

A thing that might exist also might not exist, and a thing that might not exist cannot be required.

C.V.D.

[Simoon]

It would seem that this Jerry clown is somewhat of an intellectual masochist.

He seems to enjoy coming here just to get logically spanked, repeatedly. And he doesn't seem to learn even after being corrected, which is really sad.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Then you can't call your idea a "valid alternative." Without evidence, it's just "a thing you dreamed up."

I haven’t dreamed anything up, that would require some form of definition. I just consider it a possibility that might provide a valid alternative, what the ‘it’ is I have no idea.
On the other hand you discount it without any valid alternative.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Evidence of what, precisely?

The matter that makes up life is found elsewhere in the universe, and there is no matter that makes up life that is not foudn elsewhere. That is evidence that life emerged naturally from within the universe, and requires no external source.

That’s the same as saying as we’re here, life began. If you view that as a sufficient explanation why look to science to prove anything?

Time began after the moment of the Big Bang, which means that the gravitational singularity (which contained all of the matter and energy that makes up the universe) is, by definition, eternal. There is no evidence of where the universe "came from" because the universe did not "come from" anywhere.

Can you explain how the big bang began if there was no time to measure a beginning point?

I just did. Care to prove me wrong?

That’s an alternative, but you’re still in no position to negate something which is unknown.

Valid as what? Certainly not as a way of interacting with the world.

It depends on how you define ‘interacting’.

We certainly are. That is what evidence is for. Conjecture supported by evidence can be assessed as having greater probability than conjectured unsupported by evidence.

]You’re not trying to prove the same thing. You assert this is how something occurred to account for a why.

You could measure anything that has occurred and then state this is how it happened, therefore a why is not required? It makes no sense.

Since you admit that you have no evidence to support your conjecture, I can assess its probability as negligible. Even if I didn't have an alternative theory, your theory wouldn't be any more probable, because it is still not supported by evidence.

How do you assess the probability of what is, without having all the evidence? With an estimated variable of what is unknown to known, your calculations would have a foundation in bullshit.

I could be convinced otherwise if presented with sufficient evidence. What else should I base my understanding of the world on?

If by "disbelief" you mean "skepticism," then you are quite right. I, like you, am skeptical until shown sufficient evidence to assuage my skepticism.

No that’s what I mean. Generally I’m sceptical with most things unless a explanation of something is required, which is why santa and leprechauns and not required as they explain nothing.

Ah, but I'm both. I'm agnostic because I don't know, but I'm an atheist because I also don't believe. Further, I'm an atheist because I acknowledge that whether or not I believe is entirely irrelevant. What is true is true whether I believe it or not, and whether I believe or not has no effect on the truth. It doesn't matter what I believe, so I don't bother to do so.

It doesn’t matter to others what you believe but it matters to yourself. You can apply this to any aspect of life.

What evidence do you have that existence must be caused?

Basic casuality. We require something beyond our current knowledge to account for existence.

Nope. Agnosticism admits it doesn't know.

Atheism states that it doesn't believe. It doesn't negate; it just isn't convinced.

For example, are these two statements:

a) I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster.
b) the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

the same statement? Or is it possible to make the first statement while admitting that the second may not be true? Is it possible to say that, because of insufficient evidence, I do not believe that the Loch Ness monster exists while admitting that I may be wrong?

I don't believe in any gods because I don't see sufficient evidence for any. But there may be entities beyond our ability to comprehend, and I wouldn't say that they don't exist. Only that I don't believe that they do.

If the application of your belief is the same as if the statement is true, then they're the same. I think atheists use this as a logical loophole, rather than something they actually apply.

What do you imagine this something to be, if you can't reconcile an uncaused cause? Surely if must be a thing that was caused, and in turn that the thing that caused it must have been caused. Turtles all the way down, as it were.

I, on the other hand, have no problem reconciling an uncaused universe. It is more parsimonious than a universe caused by an uncaused creator, after all.

That all depends on your perspective, but you have no valid means to state it's parsimonious if you can't re-create an uncaused universe from literally nothing (Space, time and matter).

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

I'm not negating anything. I'm just filing your claim as lacking evidence, which you've admitted. Your claim may or may not be true, but I'm not going to treat it as true until you show me some evidence that it is.

Call that negation if you must.

I don’t expect you to view it as true. I call it negation as that is what it is. All I’m saying is don’t rule out possibilities until the full picture is obtained.
I don’t think atheists expect any evidence come to light and their position is based around this.

Are you asking if I think that statement "humans are capable of perceiving all that is" is an assumption? Or if I think that humans are actually capable of perceiving all that is?

Well, essentially both.

Then your "explanation" is in no way useful, and it is potentially incorrect.

Useful’ as in? It doesn’t define how I live my life, although I admit without the possibility of ‘something’ else then life would be a divine comedy without the divine.

That's the problem. It's not an explanation if it's not defined. It's just some haphazard nonsense you're throwing together to be contrary.

Not at all. You could consider it contrary that I come here, but my disagreement with your position is truthful. The difference is I remain open to the possibility that NMM might exist to account for a why. Most here don’t require a why and disbelieve anything unproven. The leprechauns and santa analogies do nothing to dissuade me from this view. Given the possibility of other universes, possibilities combined with the infinite become probable.

And yet you are positing an undefined answer to a "why question." What is your "nebulous magic [man]" if not an attempt to account for a "why question" without enough evidence?

I remain open to the possibility of NMM without the existence of evidence, yet I don’t consider it to be true.

You have not shown that one is required.

]If one exists, science will not be able to show it so you disregard it. That doesn’t mean one does (or doesn’t) exist. It’s exactly the same principle as arguing for if NMM exists, and if it does it would account for a why. You can choose to view all that is, is solely physical and therefore measurable. Using scientific means to determine otherwise will probably be difficult.

Both are valid alternatives to your undefined "nebulous magic [man]."

Therefore, your "nebulous magic [man]" is not required.

Both are valid alternatives but until proven, the possibility of NMM is not removed. I don’t state NMM is required, merely a possibility.

Atheism works on the assumption that it is possible for a person to hear a claim and not be convinced by it.

That is more being human and not unique to Atheists, what is unique is what the determining factors are which convince Atheists when they hear a claim.

I've never experienced anything that could not be explained naturalistically.

Fascinating most people have experienced something. E.g. loved ones saying goodbye after dying, eerie co-incidences etc.

I have no hope or expectation on the matter. I have no idea what this evidence might look like if it existed. But if you want me to believe a claim that something outside the universe created the universe, that is the type of evidence I need to see.

Fair enough, that’s your choice, although you could not see something which cannot be observed.

Then your claim is both unsupported and irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you. That’s applying the principle that nmm applies “thou shalts”, if he does I see no verifiable evidence that he does.

Because the vast majority of people do. If you really don't, then good for you.

Good for me. If I was born in a different family it would probably be otherwise.

Why do you assume that the universe's own internal causality cannot explain its origin?

The concept of a self creating anything does not compute. There is no reason to think the causality we experience applies to the self creation of the universe. All conditions observed occur within the existence of the universe, not outside of it.

Why is something beyond our current understanding required? What's wrong with the infinite regression argument?

On what basis do you negate the perfectly valid alternative of the infinite regression argument?

As an infinite regression would never get to the point to ‘cause’ anything. Something beyond our current understanding is required as we have potential alternatives but no conclusive proof that these are correct. Surely you’d prefer more proof than what is currently known?[/font]

Is the "nmm" subject to the infinite regression argument that doesn't convince you? Is the "nmm" subject to the uncaused cause idea that you can't reconcile?

Is it turtles all the way down, or do you give your undefined "nmm" a free pass on all the things you refuse to apply to the universe?

I don’t refuse to apply them, they are valid options. But that they are currently only options, along with NMM. I answer a why with the possibility of a NMM, you think no why exists. That’s just a presumption to suit your fundamental position of only the physical exists.

Here's a valid alternative: the universe is infinitely cyclical. It is currently expanding, with energy converting into heat, and will eventually begin to condense again until all of the energy is used up and it returns to a gravitational singularity. At that point, where physics no longer operate in the way we understand them, all of the heat energy will be recycled into usable energy. Once all of the energy becomes usable again, the singularity will expand again in another Big Bang. The universe will expand, matter and energy will do what they will, and the cycle will continue again.
Are the physics of a singularity not "something beyond our current understanding," just as you demanded? Does this not constitute a valid alternative that is both naturalistic and infinitely regressive?

Physics serve to state how something happened, so I’m not sure what answer you’re looking for.

Without all of the information, on what basis do you negate this scenario?

I don’t. I’m unsure how you present it as true without all the information.

[selliedjoup]

Simoon wrote

It would seem that this Jerry clown is somewhat of an intellectual masochist.

He seems to enjoy coming here just to get logically spanked, repeatedly. And he doesn't seem to learn even after being corrected, which is really sad.

By coming here and presenting a differing opinion, I don't expect anything else than your view. I do find it fascinating how you present your belief with absolute certainty, it's as if it were a religion.

[ghoulslime]

Jerry seems to think that if he generates enough inane prattle, somebody might mistake him for something other than a complete imbecile.

[Davin]

ghoulslime wrote

Jerry seems to think that if he generates enough inane prattle, somebody might mistake him for something other than a complete imbecile.

At least it's funny to watch.

[nkb]

So, Jerry, are leprechauns a valid alternative?

[selliedjoup]

ghoulslime wrote

Jerry seems to think that if he generates enough inane prattle, somebody might mistake him for something other than a complete imbecile.

Davin wrote

At least it's funny to watch.

nkb wrote

So, Jerry, are leprechauns a valid alternative?

You seem to think I consider myself able to convince the devout atheists that reside here. I'm under no misconceptions that that will occur.

I find it amusing how you flit between belief and logic and portray yourselves as some form of authority of such a topic. I find that funny.

[nkb]

I find it amusing that you dodge questions when they are about to cornhole your idiotic argument.

So, do you consider leprechauns a valid alternative?

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

I haven’t dreamed anything up, that would require some form of definition. I just consider it a possibility that might provide a valid alternative, what the ‘it’ is I have no idea.

The "it" requires no definition beyond being an "it." The "it" is an undefined something that you dreamed up.

selliedjoup wrote

On the other hand you discount it without any valid alternative.

There's nothing to discount, according to you.

How can an undefined "it" be considered a valid alternative, much less a thing deserving of being discounted?

selliedjoup wrote

That’s the same as saying as we’re here, life began.

Well, yes. Is it incorrect to say that, based on the fact that we're here, life began?

selliedjoup wrote

If you view that as a sufficient explanation why look to science to prove anything?

I didn't say it was a sufficient explanation. But it is the beginning of an explanation, which one can seek to support using scientific methodology.

selliedjoup wrote

Can you explain how the big bang began if there was no time to measure a beginning point?

The Big Bang began when all of the used-up heat energy from the last cycle of the universe was recycled back into energy usable for work. It wasn't a matter of time; it was a matter of that particular task being completed.

I don't know that that explanation is correct, but then you didn't ask if I knew. You just asked if I could explain it.

selliedjoup wrote

That’s an alternative, but you’re still in no position to negate something which is unknown.

If it's unknown, then it doesn't need to be negated. But I certainly am in a position to assess your undefined proposal as useless, especially since I offered a valid alternative, just as you asked.

selliedjoup wrote

It depends on how you define ‘interacting’.

How do you define "interacting"?

selliedjoup wrote

You’re not trying to prove the same thing. You assert this is how something occurred to account for a why.

A "how" is the mechanism by which something occurred.

A "why" is the motivation behind an action deliberately initiated by an intelligent agent.

A "how" does not always have a "why." A crater on the moon, for instance, has a "how," but not a "why."

selliedjoup wrote

You could measure anything that has occurred and then state this is how it happened, therefore a why is not required?

That's not what I said, or even what I suggested. But a "how" does not always require a "why." A "how" only requires a "why" if an intelligent agent was involved in the "how."

selliedjoup wrote

It makes no sense.

It certainly doesn't.

selliedjoup wrote

How do you assess the probability of what is, without having all the evidence?

Very carefully.

selliedjoup wrote

With an estimated variable of what is unknown to known, your calculations would have a foundation in bullshit.

Then you admit that the undefined "it" your propose is founded in bullshit?

selliedjoup wrote

Generally I’m sceptical with most things unless a explanation of something is required...

I offered you an explanation for the universe that does not require any undefined external "its."

selliedjoup wrote

...which is why santa and leprechauns and not required as they explain nothing.

How does the undefined "it" that you propose explain anything better than santa or leprechauns? In fact, how can "it" explain anything, if you claim not to know anything about "it"?

selliedjoup wrote

It doesn’t matter to others what you believe but it matters to yourself.

It only matters to yourself if you allow what you believe to trump what is true.

selliedjoup wrote

Basic casuality. We require something beyond our current knowledge to account for existence.

Based on what evidence do you make this assertion? Why do we require something beyond our current knowledge to account for existence? You are, after all, so clearly interested in the "why."

Additionally: do the unknown physics of a gravitational singularity (which I proposed as a valid alternative to your undefined "it") constitute something "beyond our current knowledge"? Or do you claim to know the physics of a gravitational singularity?

selliedjoup wrote

If the application of your belief is the same as if the statement is true, then they're the same.

If I don't have a belief, how can I apply it to anything at all?

selliedjoup wrote

...you have no valid means to state it's parsimonious if you can't re-create an uncaused universe from literally nothing (Space, time and matter).

I didn't propose that the universe came from nothing.

I proposed that the universe always existed, in a cyclical recurrence.

selliedjoup wrote

All I’m saying is don’t rule out possibilities until the full picture is obtained.

All I'm saying is don't propose undefined "its" as possibilities until the full picture is obtained.

selliedjoup wrote

I don’t think atheists expect any evidence come to light and their position is based around this.

How is your opinion on other people's expectations relevant? On what evidence do you base this opinion? Or is it merely another undefined "it" that you dreamed up?

selliedjoup wrote

Well, essentially both.

The statement is an assumption. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's an incorrect assumption, but I don't have any evidence to support that guess, so I don't know.

selliedjoup wrote

'Useful’ as in?

Able to be used to form or find knowledge about the world.

selliedjoup wrote

...without the possibility of ‘something’ else then life would be a divine comedy without the divine.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it would be a tragedy, but mostly it would be a meandering postmodern absurdist play.

A potential consequence of a possibility is not evidence that that possibility is correct.

selliedjoup wrote

The difference is I remain open to the possibility that NMM might exist to account for a why.

The difference is that you assume that there is a "why."

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

I remain open to the possibility of NMM without the existence of evidence, yet I don’t consider it to be true.

Why then do you not similarly remain open to the possibility of Santa and leprechauns and triomni Charonian universe, even if you don't consider them to be true? Many things exist even though they are not required to exist. Life itself is not required to exist, yet does. Cleary, being required to exist is not a requirement for existing.

selliedjoup wrote

If one exists, science will not be able to show it so you disregard it.

If science can't show "it", how is "it" in any way relevant? How can you tell the difference between "its" existence and "its" nonexistence?

selliedjoup wrote

You can choose to view all that is, is solely physical and therefore measurable.

Things need not be physical to be measurable. Time is measurable. Heat is measurable.

selliedjoup wrote

Both are valid alternatives but until proven, the possibility of NMM is not removed.

Only shown to not be required, which is what you asked.

selliedjoup wrote

I don’t state NMM is required, merely a possibility.

Then why have you repeated demanded that we prove it's not required?

selliedjoup wrote

That is more being human and not unique to Atheists, what is unique is what the determining factors are which convince Atheists when they hear a claim.

That's not unique to atheists. The determining factors that cause an atheist not to be convinced that Jesus was the son of God are the same as the determining factors that cause a Hindu, a Jew, and a Muslim not to be convinced that Jesus was the son of God. The determining factors that cause an atheist not to be convinced that Mohammed as the prophet of Allah are the same determining factors that cause a Hindu, a Jew, and a Christian not to be convinced that Mohammed as the prophet of Allah.

selliedjoup wrote

Fascinating most people have experienced something. E.g. loved ones saying goodbye after dying, eerie co-incidences etc.

No one has ever said goodbye (to anyone) after dying.

And, as Isaac Asimov wrote: "People are entirely too disbelieving of coincidence. They are far too ready to dismiss it and to build arcane structures of extremely rickety substance in order to avoid it. I, on the other hand, see coincidence everywhere as an inevitable consequence of the laws of probability, according to which having no unusual coincidence is far more unusual than any coincidence could possibly be."

selliedjoup wrote

Fair enough, that’s your choice...

Is it really? I don't recall choosing a particular standard of evidence for myself. That is merely the standard of evidence that will convince me. There is no choice about it.

selliedjoup wrote

...although you could not see something which cannot be observed.

On what basis do you assert that evidence from outside the universe could not be observed?

selliedjoup wrote

Irrelevant to you.

Irrelevant to the universe.

selliedjoup wrote

That’s applying the principle that nmm applies “thou shalts”, if he does I see no verifiable evidence that he does.

Your undefined "it" is suddenly a "he"?

Does calling this potential "it" a "he" constitute the beginnings of a definition? Does it follow that, your "it" being a "he," "it" has a penis, which is a fairly defining element of a "he"?

Good for me. If I was born in a different family it would probably be otherwise.

selliedjoup wrote

The concept of a self creating anything does not compute.

I didn't propose a "self creating" universe. The term "creation" implies that something did not exist, and then later began to exist.

I proposed a universe that did not begin at all, but always existed.

selliedjoup wrote

All conditions observed occur within the existence of the universe, not outside of it.

Then on what basis do you propose something outside the universe, if all of our observations are limited to being within the existence of the universe?

selliedjoup wrote

As an infinite regression would never get to the point to ‘cause’ anything.

I never suggested that it would.

I suggested that the universe was not "caused" at all. It always was.

selliedjoup wrote

Something beyond our current understanding is required as we have potential alternatives but no conclusive proof that these are correct.

I proposed a body of unknown physics within a gravitational singularity, which are "beyond our current understanding."

selliedjoup wrote

I answer a why with the possibility of a NMM, you think no why exists.

You suggest a "why" while admitting that you don't have sufficient evidence for one. I reject your assertion that a "why" is necessary.

selliedjoup wrote

That’s just a presumption to suit your fundamental position of only the physical exists.

I don't presume that "only the physical exists." Energy exists, and is not physical.

That is not a presumption. It is the observable reality in which we exist.

[quote=selliedjoup]Physics serve to state how something happened, so I’m not sure what answer you’re looking for.[/color]
An answer to the question I asked:

"Are the physics of a singularity not 'something beyond our current understanding,' just as you demanded? Does this not constitute a valid alternative that is both naturalistic and infinitely regressive?"

You insist on a valid alternative, but suddenly get confused when presented with one?

selliedjoup wrote

I don’t. I’m unsure how you present it as true without all the information.

You're unsure how I present a naturalistic explanation without all of the information shortly after you presented an undefined explanation without all the information?

How did you present your proposal without all the information?

I presented my explanation without all the information by taking into account the available information. I don't propose that my explanation is necessarily true or "required," but it accounts for the available information without suggesting anything that is not supported by the available information.

How do you assess my explanation as any less likely than your undefined (yet inexplicably male) "it"?

[Simoon]

selliedjoup wrote

By coming here and presenting a differing opinion, I don't expect anything else than your view

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.

I do find it fascinating how you present your belief with absolute certainty, it's as if it were a religion.

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:

Simoon wrote

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. I disbelieve one does. I am not justified to believe a god exists based on the evidence that has been presented to me

Simoon wrote

What proof do I need to provide? Again, I'm not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

I am not making the claim that no gods exist. I am making the claim that I don't see a reason to believe your claim that a god exists

anthonyjfuchs wrote

We don't have evidence, which is why we don't believe.

That's what atheism is, after all. Not believing.

As long as you fail to present evidence for supernatural claims, atheism will remain correct.

ghoulslime wrote

It has already been explained to Jerry, ad nauseam, that atheists don't reject the possibility of gods, they reject only the unsubstantiated hypothesis that there are gods. He is simply a dishonest little troll who wants to argue for the sake of argument.

Do you have a reading comprehensions problem? Do you have a problem with the concepts quoted above?

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

The "it" requires no definition beyond being an "it." The "it" is an undefined something that you dreamed up.

The “it” is something I consider to be possible , which can account for something which is potentially unknowable

You choose to dismiss the why on a whim, yet it has not been scientifically proven that a why is not required, so you won’t accept it. You’ve voluntarily cornered your conclusion by accepting only answering the how’s as it’s meet occam’s razor. This is your choice, but it does not prove anything, it’s merely a mantra to meet your atheism.
John baked a cake, but then John has died. So why did John bake the cake? Your position would state there is no why, as here is the cake.

There's nothing to discount, according to you.

How can an undefined "it" be considered a valid alternative, much less a thing deserving of being discounted?

Provide full proof of the cause of the universe and what exists outside of it. Until then, your position will only be an alternative.

Well, yes. Is it incorrect to say that, based on the fact that we're here, life began?

Not at all, but it explains nothing.

I didn't say it was a sufficient explanation. But it is the beginning of an explanation, which one can seek to support using scientific methodology.

One can choose to use science as the only means if one is only seeking an answer to the how’s. But then applying this question to then deny a why makes no sense, as there is has no reason for doing so apart from applying your belief structure.

The Big Bang began when all of the used-up heat energy from the last cycle of the universe was recycled back into energy usable for work. It wasn't a matter of time; it was a matter of that particular task being completed.

You, of course, realise for something to be complete would require time?
I

don't know that that explanation is correct, but then you didn't ask if I knew. You just asked if I could explain it.


If it's unknown, then it doesn't need to be negated. But I certainly am in a position to assess your undefined proposal as useless, especially since I offered a valid alternative, just as you asked.

Given the alternative does not answer the question, I wouldn’t call it valid.

A "how" is the mechanism by which something occurred.

A "why" is the motivation behind an action deliberately initiated by an intelligent agent.

A "how" does not always have a "why." A crater on the moon, for instance, has a "how," but not a "why."

And how do you know this?

Then you admit that the undefined "it" your propose is founded in bullshit?

]No because I make no claims about it. The concept of it is all I propose. You choose to work on the assumption all we know, entails all of what exists. If you don’t claim this, then do you propose that things other than what we know of, do exist? And if so, where is your proof of that we don’t know of, exists?

I offered you an explanation for the universe that does not require any undefined external "its."

Yes but you don’t know it. So it only becomes an alternative for a point where the universe may have ‘begun’. I really do think this sheds any light on the discussion of a cause, as it eventually requires an uncaused cause.

How does the undefined "it" that you propose explain anything better than santa or leprechauns? In fact, how can "it" explain anything, if you claim not to know anything about "it"?

]There is nothing unaccounted for which the leprechauns or santa would explain. Ok, I will define nmm as potentially an uncaused cause. NMM is only an possible alternative which I have not considered as impossible

It only matters to yourself if you allow what you believe to trump what is true.


Based on what evidence do you make this assertion? Why do we require something beyond our current knowledge to account for existence? You are, after all, so clearly interested in the "why."

Additionally: do the unknown physics of a gravitational singularity (which I proposed as a valid alternative to your undefined "it") constitute something "beyond our current knowledge"? Or do you claim to know the physics of a gravitational singularity?

Are you proposing that once we understand the singularity that all will be understood?

If I don't have a belief, how can I apply it to anything at all?

You choose to think as you do, which is based on the belief that all that exists, is observable by man. If it’s not observable it doesn’t exist.

I didn't propose that the universe came from nothing.

I proposed that the universe always existed, in a cyclical recurrence.

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?

All I'm saying is don't propose undefined "its" as possibilities until the full picture is obtained.

The full picture won’t be in our lifetime, so I would prefer to view it as the glass is half full

How is your opinion on other people's expectations relevant? On what evidence do you base this opinion? Or is it merely another undefined "it" that you dreamed up?

Given the aversion many atheists have towards theists and others who do not share their position.

The statement is an assumption. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's an incorrect assumption, but I don't have any evidence to support that guess, so I don't know.


Able to be used to form or find knowledge about the world.

Considering all that can be known, defines all that does exists, is an assumption on your part and one I don’t subscribe to.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it would be a tragedy, but mostly it would be a meandering postmodern absurdist play.

A potential consequence of a possibility is not evidence that that possibility is correct.

So here we are back at the negation stage again.

The difference is that you assume that there is a "why."

The difference is I assume there could be a why.

to be continued...