Groundhog's day

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

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.

I did. Please see my BHC above.

selliedjoup wrote

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.

If I get really desparate, I will propose a nebulous first cause, which is exempt from having a cause, just because.
So, explain again why the universe can't be eternal, but your first cause can be.

selliedjoup wrote

Anunknowable first cause and a star shitting penguin are not the same.

Logically speaking, they are equivalent. They are both pulled out of someone's rectum. The significant difference is that you are actually serious about it, and we're mocking you with ours.

selliedjoup wrote

One is defined as being unknowable and a catalyst for existence, the other shits stars and is a penguin.

Defined as being unknowable? You are a riot!

selliedjoup wrote

I negate the penguin based on the ridiculous nature and form of it, yet you negate both based neither are observable or knowable.

Incorrect. I dismiss your first cause based on the ridiculous nature and form (or non-form) of it as well.

selliedjoup wrote

Yet if you agree unknown/unknowable ‘things’ exist, you would not be in the position to assess how much is unknown.

I do not agree that these things exist. I have no knowledge of unknown/unknowable 'things' (and neither do you).

selliedjoup wrote

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).

You are really attached to this strawman, aren't you? I am not negating the existence of something unknowable, I am simply dismissing your concept of a first cause, on the grounds that it lacks a foundation in logic and reasoning, comes about by circular reasoning, and is too vague and pointless to be meaningful.

selliedjoup wrote

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

If I was doing that, you may have a point.

selliedjoup wrote

Calm down fat boy, eat 10 pies.

Why would I need to calm down? Why do you assume I'm not calm? Do you think that calling me fat is actually accomplishing anything? Be honest, do you think you're scoring some kind of points with that juvenile approach?

selliedjoup wrote

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

Like I said, you and your strawman need to go get a room.

selliedjoup wrote

Try to stop pretending you’re able to determine what is and what isn’t.

Never did. Calling you out on your poorly thought-out bullshit is not the equivalent of claiming to determine what is and what isn't.

selliedjoup wrote

You just come across as an overconfident but dim fatboy.

Seriously, what is your hangup with fat people? Was your molesting daddy a fat guy? Is that why harbor so much resentment, because your father's belly fat was slapping against your ass when he was nailing you?

It would definitely go a long way to explaining the aggression you exhibit.

selliedjoup wrote

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.

Ahhh, but we're talking about unknowable penguins. These aren't regular penguins, obviously. They're unknowable star-shitting penguins!

selliedjoup wrote

I don’t care how you view your own opinion, or my opinion of yours, I was telling you your taste is shite.

Apparently, you do care, otherwise, why would you bother to mention it?

selliedjoup wrote

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

Indeed!

selliedjoup wrote

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.

Nuh-uh, you're the retarded one! So there!

selliedjoup wrote

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.

It's unknowable, yet it created the universe? I don't need to inject a creature reference to make your claim ridiculous.

selliedjoup wrote

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?

Are you really that dim that you don't know where I'm heading with this? Intelligent, as in, did this "thing" create the universe knowingly.

selliedjoup wrote

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?

After all this time, and you're still on the "you don't want a god" idea? It really isn't surprising that you're missing the entire argument being made against your concept, when you have trouble understanding even the basics of atheism.