Groundhog's day

[selliedjoup]

nkb wrote

No, it's not the same, you dimwit. My point (which sailed right over your pointy little head) is that your objections to Flanbo are no different than our objections to your first cause. That is where your lack of self-awareness is most humorous

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

This thing called “Flanbo” has no purpose, while I did not give the first cause a name and its purpose was a first cause. 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 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 do that, but whatever makes you happy.

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”.

But star-shitting penguins have the purpose of shitting stars. That's all they are. Why do you need to analyze what they eat to shit the stars? That question is as relevant as asking what your first cause did to create the universe.

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

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

Are you confusing me with someone else?

No, try re-reading the posts. If you don’t get it, just deny it

But you imply some sort of intelligence in this first cause, do you not? Purpose? What is the first cause's purpose? To be a first cause? Ever heard of circular reasoning?

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.
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 like you desperately want me to state lean towards a first cause due to logic. You’re welcome to restrict your view to all that science can offer, but you have no basis for doing so. You need to invoke something beyond our understanding and account for the high improbability of life. You’re like a kid with his fingers in his ears yelling “no”.

I find it funny that you don't see it.

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.Tell you what why don’t you propose a first cause which is unknowable? Try to steer clear of offering something like a pixie called “Clarence”, otherwise I’m fairly sure you’ll miss the point again.

And which point have I missed? Please elaborate.

Already have, see above and below for the point you have missed. Let me know if you miss it again.

What you fail to comprehend is that the transparent trick of not defining any characteristics of your first cause (other than being a first cause) doesn't make it a valid alternative, any more than slightly more defined star-shitting penguins. They are both pointless concepts.

Not at all, you can perceive them to be pointless concepts based on your requirements for being able to observe something. This requirement leads to other pointless concepts such as an eternal universe and even multiverses if you get desperate enough. Anunknowable first cause and a star shitting penguin are not the same.

One is defined as being unknowable and a catalyst for existence, the other shits stars and is a penguin. I negate the penguin based on the ridiculous nature and form of it, yet you negate both based neither are observable or knowable. Yet if you agree unknown/unknowable ‘things’ exist, you would not be in the position to assess how much is unknown. So to then negate something based on what you know, yet oddly conceding you don’t know everything, yet this statement is superfluous to requirements. You may as well say you just know everything if you’re negating the unknowable first cause (as you previously did).

Do you understand that claiming that you don’t know everything yet negating something the possibility of something unknowable are contradictory?

Not accepting a vague description of an intelligent first cause (without any definition other than being a first cause) from a semi-retarded, arrogant prick on the internet is not the same as denying it. It's just telling this prick that his concept is not compelling, no matter how many times he claims that it is.

Calm down fat boy, eat 10 pies.

]Like I said by taking this position you’re assuming all is (or must be) knowable otherwise you’re just using pseudo neutral position, which somehow absolves your bias logic of negating (but not really ). It’s perfectly ok to say you don’t know, primarily because you don’t

Try to stop pretending you’re able to determine what is and what isn’t. You just come across as an overconfident but dim fatboy.

How do you negate these penguins? In your puny, feeble little mind, you can't envision penguins that can shit stars, so, instead of being unknowable, and therefore being a valid alternative, you can dismiss them? How is that different from what we're doing?

I negate the penguins for two reasons. Firstly the evidence is stars were created as a result of the singularity, and the notion that a penguin is floating around (based on what we know of a penguin) and shitting out stars is impossible.

If, at any time in the future, you notice me giving even a little pebble of a rat shit about what you think about movies, or my opinion of them, please let me know immediately, so I can start planning a way to off myself in the most gruesome fashion imaginable.

I don’t care how you view your own opinion, or my opinion of yours, I was telling you your taste is shite. Next you’ll probably be saying the Matrix blew your mind and Home Improvement was a funny and clever show. Hopefully these examples aren’t too avant garde for your tastes.

See above.

Yes it’s a shame when people’s bitterness gets in the way.

And so Jerry keeps going around on the retarded merry-go-round.

It’s your retarded merry go round. I’m just telling you why it’s retarded. You don’t get it because you’re retarded, which isn’t your fault.

Yeah, and I was trying to so hard to slip that one by. You are so quick, Jerry!

Yeah I know you are trying. It is a consistent ploy here. If I then wrote “creature” you’d ask why I said it was a creature yet still unknowable. Transparent as hell.

So, is your first cause intelligent?

I wouldn’t discount that intelligence is present, but I won’t state that it is either based on i don’t know what you’re attempting to imply. What exactly do you mean by intelligent?

Is the definition of "valid alternative" anything that Jerry accepts? If so, that phrase is completely meaningless.

Shouldn’t you offer evidence for something for it to become accepted, rather than as you don’t want a god an eternal universe and/or Multiverse must exist?

[Smellyoldgit]

[selliedjoup]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Tell me about it, i thought fatboy would have got it by now. It is only through my charitable nature that I'm trying to help him (and other unfortunates) grasp it.

That said, I'm just waiting for another fantastic fantasy analogy to illustrate the fact that the point is lost on most here.

[dogpet]

Poor Jerrymouse, sometime, somewhere, there will be a distant moon made of cheese.

[Smellyoldgit]

[Qlidnaque]

selliedjoup, why don't you stop trying to go in circles with this argument and just show us some solid proof that your god exists. Then we can stop this discussion and either say a) you are right and there is a god or b) you are hallucinating and your words are not to be taken seriously.

[Sternwallow]

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

OK, gotcha, it is just a matter of getting our terminology aligned and then we can discuss the two equally valid explanations for the beginning of the universe.

You have, in fact given your candidate a name. For you it is "first cause"; mine is "putrid gunk". Both are claimed to have caused the universe and both are otherwise completely undefined. In order to be the only cause of something, they cannot be something themselves, otherwise something could create something and that is not permitted in your cosmology. Therefore "first cause" and "putrid gunk" are not things; they must be nothings. They cannot exist "outside of space and time" because that would partially define them.

I make the further stipulation without defining either item, that whatever "first cause" and "putrid gunk" are, they are different in every respect except for having caused the universe. I do not think you have any logical basis for disputing this stipulation.

There is then no way to decide which of the two equally valid candidates for creator of the universe exists in any sense and so no reason to believe that either one of them exists in any sense.

So, just as you have reverse-engineered the universe "every effect must have a cause except for those effects which do not have a cause") back in time to reach the point of its creation.

We can consider what capability a creator for the universe would need. It turns out that, since there is zero energy (mass = k * energy), a natural force of exactly zero is adequate to make a universe of nothing out of nothing. That is a consequence of the universe being measurably geometrically flat.

The first cause can be completely natural and it can create a universe as large as ours. A natural creator of the universe does not ask us to worship it and do great harm to our fellow humans at its command. Hallelujah!

[anthonyjfuchs]

Selly doesn't believe that his "god" (which he insists on calling a stalwartly undefined "first cause") exists. He said so. No believe towards it.

Which makes me wonder why he would get his boy-shorts in a twist over the fact that we also don't have any belief towards it. He's admitted that it may not exist. We've agreed. It may not exist. What more he wants, I couldn't say.

His continued presence seems rather pointless.

[Simoon]

selliedjoup wrote

That said, I'm just waiting for another fantastic fantasy analogy to illustrate the fact that the point is lost on most here.

Explain to us why the first cause god you postulate is not a fantastic fantasy?

Define your god and offer evidence that it exists. If not, on what rational basis are we justified in believing it exists?

Time (actually, it's way past time) to put up or shut up. I'm all for the shut up option.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Obviously we are not justified in having no belief towards Selly's hypothetical first cause even though Selly himself admits to having no belief toward his own hypothetical first cause.

He's allowed to lack belief in it. We are not.

[Simoon]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Because he doesn't believe that his "god" (which he insists on calling a stalwartly undefined "first cause") exists. He said so. No believe towards it.

Which has lead me to the conclusion that he is way more hung up on the term 'atheist' and his misconception on what he thinks it means.

Which makes me wonder why he would get his boy-shorts in a twist over the fact that we also don't have any belief towards it. He's admitted that it may not exist. We've agreed. It may not exist. What more he wants, I couldn't say.

Is he an atheist, but can't admit it?

Is it time for Jerry to come out as a non-believer?

[Sternwallow]

Do you understand that claiming that you don’t know everything yet negating something the possibility of something unknowable are contradictory?

Being unknown/unknowable is not the same as being undefined. So it is reasonable to state that nothing undefined exists because anything that exists has an observable effect, at least in principle, in the world that would be part of its definition. Incidentally this is why your proposed undefined first cause is invalid.

There are many very specific kinds of natural events that we know are not (intentionally) caused. It is not that we don't know the cause or that the cause is unknowable, there isn't one in principle.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Simoon wrote

Is [Selly/Jerry] an atheist, but can't admit it?

Yes. Yes, he is.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I quite like the idea of a star shitting penguin , if I am honest that would be more plausable than an all powerfull unknown. I have seen a penguin after all. Now to find one that shits stars. Or maybe dark matter, and pissing dark energy. That would put the LHC in its place.

[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)