Groundhog's day

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Yes. Yes, he is.

I’d like to know why you think so and why I’m not agnostic. What would it require for someone to be agnostic in your eyes?

I lean towards (or even guess) deism if anything based on the logic of the first cause and the Anthropic principle, but I don’t believe as I’d need to know to believe. Belief and know are interchangeable for me.
Maybe infinite regression, eternal universe and the multiverse are sufficient for you to believe in Atheism. It's merely your choice to follow the ideology of scientific materialism, but that's all it is, a choice. You have no basis to claim scientific materialism holds any more (or less) than any other belief set.

You believe without knowing and I’d assume you find atheist arguments compelling, as I once did. Now they no longer stack up for me. I really don’t understand your warped logic of non-belief of the tooth fairy being the same as a non-belief in a first cause, for me, it’s not remotely the same.

I think you understand this difference but enjoy using this ridiculous play on the use of “belief” to somehow bolster your perspective.

[selliedjoup]

Qlidnaque wrote

You are trying to explain something (your 'first cause') with an even more improbable thing. If someone was to either choose which is more likely, the only logical choice would be to choose the less improbable choice. Let me explain. Let's say the first cause of the Big Bang was an improbable theory, therefore hard to believe (it very might as well been not have the first cause but that's beyond our present day science for the moment). What you are stating is that because the Big Bang was improbable, you must therefore subscribe to an even more improbable theory that an extremely complex being called God had to have been the first cause.

I thinkn the big bang was probable, so where does this place a first cause in this equation? I have no idea what you use to assign values such as improbable, and complex apart from your preference to do so.

If there are unknown(or even unknowbale variables in an equation, establishing what is improbable is an exercise in futility. Complex in which terms? Ours? A little humancentric is it not? I can only assume you think humans are cabale of obtaining all answers, inclduing those which have none.

And the reason why this 'God' entity cannot be a simple energy form like a lot of Christians like to describe, is because it's compatible with communicating with billions of people across the globe simultaneously and had to have had the complexity to be able to create solar systems, oceans, biology, etc.

I'm not a christian.

I actually quite enjoyed the movie "Invention of Lying" and thought it was a brilliant story that could possibly inspire the minds of mildly religious people or those sitting on the fence on the topic of religion. By the way, it grossed $32 million dollars compared to a budget of $18.5 million and was a small box office success. Finding a box office success movie entertaining has nothing to do with someone being a deep thinker or not

The movie was shite. The Office and Extras were funny. Box office figures indicate nothing.

You seem to be a very judgmental person. I'd like to think of you as a kind and reasonable nice person, and that this type of judgmental behavior is only situational in these types of argument. However, if that is the case, then it's undeniable that it's your specific religion that makes you a judgmental and hating person, and demonstrates how religion and strong belief in something can have negative effects on people.

Don't be a self righteous and condescending arse. Everyone is judgmental in these discussions, you place your judgements on me, and then in turn write a response to address them.

I'm not religious.

to be continued later..

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

If you propose causelessness is a valid alternative, then you need to present evidence for it...

You have asserted repeatedly that your undefined "first cause" is a valid alternative, and yet you have also admited that have no evidence for it.

Why do you hold my ideas to a different standard?

Either your first cause and my proposal of causelessness are both valid alternatives, since they are both supported by an equal amount of evidence (that is: none), or neither of them are. You can ask for evidence of my theory when you offer evidence for your own.

If you're proposing quantum foam as uncaused...

I'm not.

I’d like to know why you think so and why I’m not agnostic.

You are both.

You admit that you don't know, and that makes you agnostic.

You also admit that you don't believe, and that makes you an atheist.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism includes atheism.

What would it require for someone to be agnostic in your eyes?

Everyone is agnostic in my eyes with regards to the supernatural.

Belief and know are interchangeable for me.

They are not for the rest of the English-speaking world.

Unlike agnosticism and atheism, belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive. You know what you know, and what you don't know, you have to believe.

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

You say you wonder why you bother wasting time on me, I'll do you a favour. I'm bored with your responses. Regurgitated and repetitive responses abound.

You have two modes:
1. Ignore what has been said, and repeat the same asinine arguments as always, all while building strawman after strawman
2. You dodge and evade.

You should see the look of shock on my face at your latest response.

[MajorTomWaits99]

selliedjoup wrote

I think you're going mad. The universes exists, has an obseravble effect, but what caused the singularity is undefined and fuck all is known about the singularity.

You seem to think the sum of all known parts equals existence. Can you define anything which is unknowable? No? Thought not. Can you not define anything known? No again huh?

Sure they're not the same, but they go hand in hand.

You seem to forget it is you lot who require the definition as it being undefined has no bearing on my view whatsoever. I consider that there is a high likelyhood of many things being unknowable You choose to discount that as I cannot define the unknowable your position is valid. It’s not.

So if something pops in and out of existence, within existence, this is enough to say there is no principle? Who told you this?

So if you can't know God how can you prove that he exists? I mean the burden of evidences comes to YOU The proponent.

[dogpet]

selliedjoup wrote

Sure they're not the same, but they go hand in hand.

Right. Like demented & escort on hospital visit.

[dogpet]

selliedjoup wrote

I consider that there is a high likelyhood of many things being unknowable You choose to discount that as I cannot define the unknowable your position is valid. It’s not.

You can consider yourself a wit & a philosopher if it keeps you off the porn, but you can never know if anything is unknowable. I assure you in your case a lot is.

[Simoon]

selliedjoup wrote

I’d like to know why you think so and why I’m not agnostic. What would it require for someone to be agnostic in your eyes?

Oh, bloody hell! We've ALL told you multiple times that atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive.

We've also ALL told you that we are agnostic, in that we admit that it is unknown or unknowable if a god exists or not.

We've also told you that we are also atheist, in that there is no justifiable reason to believe a god exists.

I lean towards (or even guess) deism if anything based on the logic of the first cause and the Anthropic principle, but I don’t believe as I’d need to know to believe. Belief and know are interchangeable for me.

And there's your problem. Belief and knowledge are not interchangeable terms. How can you expect to have a debate when you're not using the language correctly?

I even asked you if you understood the difference between the words way back on this thread. You answered affirmatively.

{quote]You believe without knowing and I’d assume you find atheist arguments compelling, as I once did.[/quote]

No, we are without belief in a first cause deity.

[Qlidnaque]

selliedjoup wrote

I thinkn the big bang was probable, so where does this place a first cause in this equation? I have no idea what you use to assign values such as improbable, and complex apart from your preference to do so.

It doesn't place a first cause in the equation. There could have been something preceeding the big bang. The difference between you and me is I'm saying we don't know what was the first cause, whereas you are stating that a scientifically complex god entity was the first cause without explaining where the first cause of this god entity came from. We're both saying we don't know what happened in the beginning. Your simply going the more improbable way of saying a god existed without explaining the first cause preceeding the god. My saying of the big bang being improbable hold not that much of significance, as I am not a physicist, to whom the big bang theory may seem a very probable event. However, the god theory of an scientifically extremely complex being existing and coming out of nowhere to all of a sudden start the whole universe, is a much less probable theory than one that explains the same phenomenon without the god element in it.

If there are unknown(or even unknowbale variables in an equation, establishing what is improbable is an exercise in futility. Complex in which terms? Ours? A little humancentric is it not? I can only assume you think humans are cabale of obtaining all answers, inclduing those which have none.

The god you state to exist, which seems to have the capability to create a scientifically complex universe, is a known variable. As I've said in my previous post, if you claim a god that didn't do anything to interfere with the world at all, then it would indeed be an unknown variable to which we can't assign a probability other than it has similar chances of existence as santa clause or the toothfairy, which also don't interfere with our world but might as well exist. And I think humans can obtain almost all answers to things in life, except things to which there are no answers for. When you said I think humans can obtain answers to things where there are none, I don't think you were thinking properly as that is just an illogical statement; no one can give answers when no answer exists.

I'm not a christian.

from reading the other posts, seems like your an agnostic, but then again you are arguing for a god that doesn't merely sit around and do nothing. May I ask which god you are specifically arguing for? Or if your arguing for god/gods in general, how much of an influential god (you already mentioned the god your arguing for can create a universe, so can he answer prayers or create floods as well?) you are talking about.

The movie was shite. The Office and Extras were funny. Box office figures indicate nothing.

Just like you mention box office figures indicate nothing, and finding a movie or any tv show entertaining doesn't mean the viewer has a hollow thinking mechanism. That was judgmental on your part.

Don't be a self righteous and condescending arse. Everyone is judgmental in these discussions, you place your judgements on me, and then in turn write a response to address them.

We're not trying to be condescending, we're simply dealing with a case of a possibly very thickheaded person who can neither properly formulate his arguments, and closed off from reason, we're simply doing the best we can to communicate with such people. I hope you understand.

I'm not religious.

You ARE religious. You certainly are trying to say that a god exists that can create a whole universe. Sure, it might not be a mainstream god, but that's a god nonetheless. If you are agnostic, you will say that you don't know whether a god exists or not, which I can agree on, as I can never prove that god exists I can only say my certainty of an absence of a god is as great as my certainty that leperchons and santa clause don't exist. So please clarify yourself in either saying you believe a god exists (religious), or that you don't know if a god exists (agnostic).

[anthonyjfuchs]

Simoon wrote

No, we are without belief in a first cause deity.

So is Selly. He's a damn spineless atheist.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

I think you're going mad. The universes exists, has an obseravble effect, but what caused the singularity is undefined and fuck all is known about the singularity.

Did you just say that the universe created itself?

The universe exists but it might have had no cause.

You seem to think the sum of all known parts equals existence. Can you define anything which is unknowable? No? Thought not. Can you not define anything known? No again huh?

The number of positive electrons in the center of Alpha Centari is certainly unknowable for the near future so any argument that depends on that number is invalid. Yet, if there is a non-zero number of such positive electrons there, that is an effect on the universe that would qualify as part of reality.

Saying that there is an undefined thing that might or might not be a particle in the center of Alpha Centari has no meaning or use. It is a completely empty hypothesis.

Sure they're not the same, but they go hand in hand.

Any characteristic a thing has is part of its definition so things without a definition are not part of reality in any sensible way.

We admit that a god might exist who has no effect on reality. Such a god is equivalent to a god that does not exist.

You seem to forget it is you lot who require the definition as it[if?] being undefined has no bearing on my view whatsoever.

Not so. Without a definition, your view is empty of meaning, especially your presumption that such a thing can exist.

I consider that there is a high likelyhood[sic] of many things being unknowable You choose to discount that as I cannot define the unknowable your position is valid. It’s not.

Yes, many things are unknowable. Being unknowable due to an absence of definition disqualifies that thing from being considered real because being real would define the thing.

So if something pops in and out of existence, within existence, this is enough to say there is no principle? Who told you this?

Yes there is a principle and that principle is that completely random events are not intentionally caused by definition. Things popping in and out of existence has been shown to be patternless and so is not a product of intentionality.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

I’d like to know why you think so and why I’m not agnostic. What would it require for someone to be agnostic in your eyes?

Agnosticism is about knowledge and is the position that the existence of god is neither known nor is its negation known. Belief has to do with faith that is a position taken in the absence of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence.

I lean towards (or even guess) deism if anything based on the logic of the first cause

I have shown that the logic of first cause fails if no first cause can be defined.

and the Anthropic principle,

The anthropic principle only says that people who can question their own existence requires an environment in which people can exist. It says nothing about how that environment came about.

but I don’t believe as I’d need to know to believe. Belief and know are interchangeable for me.

Other people do recognize a very important distinction between belief and knowledge. Belief is personal and knowledge is public.

Maybe infinite regression, eternal universe and the multiverse are sufficient for you to believe in Atheism.

You continue to fail to see that atheism is not a belief.
People who have never heard of god or people who just haven't considered whether there is a god or not, do not believe in god and are therefore atheists. Anyone who does not believe in a god, for whatever reason, is an atheist, even very young children.

It's merely your choice to follow the ideology of scientific materialism, but that's all it is, a choice. You have no basis to claim scientific materialism holds any more (or less) than any other belief set.

Materialism is a reasonable basis for knowledge because there has been not one verifiable effect on the world that has not been material. If something that has been unobserved and so not considered part of nature suddenly causes some event, that event would be accepted within materialism and information about it could be sought by the scientific method.

You believe without knowing and I’d assume you find atheist arguments compelling, as I once did.

You continue to misunderstand atheism. We do not believe it based on evidence for atheism, we are unable to believe in the supernatural due to total lack of evidence for it. There is no reason to believe in the supernatural, that's all there is to it.

Now they no longer stack up for me. I really don’t understand your warped logic of non-belief of the tooth fairy being the same as a non-belief in a first cause, for me, it’s not remotely the same.

You are right that there is much more evidence, both testimonial and tangible for the Tooth Fairy than for your nebulous first cause. They are different in that sense.

I think you understand this difference but enjoy using this ridiculous play on the use of “belief” to somehow bolster your perspective.

The only bolstering my perspective needs is evidence. Evidence will definitely sway me one way or the other.

A tree in my front yard fell over last week. If you provide evidence that, like the parted Red sea, God (MNQB) did it and it could not have been done by a natural force, I will definitely rate the god hypothesis much higher than I do now. Do that often enough to overcome coincidence and I will definitely become a believer.

Be careful what you offer as evidence. Do not, for example, cite a Biblical prophesy. Do not offer your own faith as evidence. Do not claim that it was God (MNQB) because your priest or minister said so. Do not claim, after the fact, that your whole congregation prayed for it to fall over. If you do, I will simply counter that I prayed to Joe Pesci for it to fall over so he is a superior explanation to your little god because Joe Pesci exists.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

You have asserted repeatedly that your undefined "first cause" is a valid alternative, and yet you have also admited that have no evidence for it.

Why do you hold my ideas to a different standard?

Your ideas are held against a different standard as they are different. An unknowable first cause is by defintion unknowable. A first cause is undefined and potentially unknowable, causelessness is defined and therefore knowable. You have no evidence for this, even though it is potentially meaureable and therefore knowable. Yet you also require evidence for the unknowable which is contradictory. If you have any evidence to discount the need for a first cause I would suggest saying what it is.

Either your first cause and my proposal of causelessness are both valid alternatives, since they are both supported by an equal amount of evidence (that is: none), or neither of them are. You can ask for evidence of my theory when you offer evidence for your own.


I'm not.

What are you proposing as uncaused then?

You are both.

You admit that you don't know, and that makes you agnostic.

You also admit that you don't believe, and that makes you an atheist.

I'm not an atheist, as I don't negate gods and I don't have an absense of belief. I do not believe that a first cause doesn't exist. Is that an atheist? You define me as an atheist by using a theist's perspective. It's all or nothing huh?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism includes atheism.

An atheist believes that a god doesn't exist. I don't believe that. I don't buy the absense of a belief as actually worth anything.

Everyone is agnostic in my eyes with regards to the supernatural.

Is that a belief or something you know? And what do you say about those who claim to know that the supernatural exists

They are not for the rest of the English-speaking world.

It's got nothing to do with defintion of the words, but how you apply your belief set to what you know and what you believe. My belief set is that I can only believe once I know. Yours seems to be I don't like religion therefore I believe in atheism, irrespective of what you know. Some relgious types know that their god exists. Why do you know/believe you are correct with your method of making a decision?

Unlike agnosticism and atheism, belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive. You know what you know, and what you don't know, you have to believe.

How do you know all of what you know to be true? Dominant paradigms change and 'truths' change in accordance to these. You've applied belief constructs to establish what you consider to be true. Why do you portray your atheism as something you know, yet state you only believe in it. You seem to think Atheism is the only option for logical people, yet you can never disprove a negative, so your view can only ever be a belief. Unless you know you the reasons for your belief is true, and if so, why is it an absolute truth?

[selliedjoup]

nkb wrote

You have two modes:
1. Ignore what has been said, and repeat the same asinine arguments as always, all while building strawman after strawman
2. You dodge and evade.

You should see the look of shock on my face at your latest response.

Seriously why do you bother to respond? You don't say anything apart from something which equates to "no you are". It's why I find you boring, I could stop 'evading' by saying "no you are", but my boredom threshold is clearly lower than yours.

[selliedjoup]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

So if you can't know God how can you prove that he exists? I mean the burden of evidences comes to YOU The proponent.

You only think it's on me. I assure you it's not, I don't need to prove anything to you. One day you may think "hmmmm, I'm probably not going to get any answers by placing a depedency on scientific materialism" however the chances are you won't as this gives you the answers you're seeking (or not).