Groundhog's day

[selliedjoup]

Simoon wrote

You only think they're mutually exclusive because you don't know the difference between the meanings of the words 'knowledge' and 'belief'. You believe they're interchangeable.

But any dictionary will prove you are wrong.

haha try googling it for yourself. I like wikipedia's description of knowledge. Do you believe you know, or know you believe, what know means?

Agnostic - a person who holds that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. (Websters)

That is my EXACT position. Find one quote from me where I don't hold that position.

I negate failed arguments that are based on faulty logic, used to support the claim that a god exists. I am not negating the possibility for the existence of a god.

Do you have any ideas on an argument, without evidence, which would convince you?

Not odd at all. I don't believe a god doesn't exist. I hold no belief that a god exists.

so you have no leaning one way or the other?

You're doing this just to be annoying, right?

Nope

If something is unknown, I hold no belief in it.

So unless you're 100% on something, you hold no belief on it? Do you never take a stab at something based on what is known and your own perspective?*

You are so lost.

It's funny you say that, as I was just thinking the same of you.

I'm not guessing that x does not exist. I have no belief that x exists. If I am presented with evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that x exists, I will accept that it does.

Hence your belief and know are the same.

To use anthonyjfuchs' example, I don't possess the 'x coin'. You think I possess a '!x coin' (where ! is negation).

The coin analogy is based on being a theist. If you do have the coin you are a theist, if you don't you are an atheist. It's too black and white. I lean towards having belief, which bears no relation to leaning towards "having the coin.

Atheism is not a belief. 'Off' is not a TV channel.

We've gone ove this 1000 times. You need a belief/worldview to result in atheism, you do not hold a conscious absense of belief in something it's contradictory. You may claim the conclusion of being an athiest does not hold any beliefs, but you need to apply a belief set to reach this conclusion.

A = without
Theism = belief in the existence of a god or god

Put them together and what do you get? What you DON'T get is 'belief there is no god'.

Ha ha are you now claiming all athiests don't believe there is no god?? You should let them know, many are using the wrong name to describe themselves.

Effectively you're claiming atheists are agnostic. But many here suppoesdly believe there is no god, but do not know there is no god. Now you're claiming atheists do not believe there is no god and do not know there is no god. The wishy-washy absense of belief atheists should try using the correct term of agnostic, but also try going beyond the dependency of science which will never provide answers to this question.

[selliedjoup]

dogpet wrote

That doesn't compute. Thinking something may exist is not a belief, because you would equally have to believe it may not exist, which makes the whole thing redundant.
To approach making a point using belief, you need to add a likelihood.
I think your god* may exist too, as may the Loch Ness monster.

Back to that redundant point? No I think the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

Why do I equally have to think one or the other, have you decided that if you do not know anything for sure, it's 50/50? A first cause is either true or false, based on the circumstantial evidence to hand I would say it does exist, but it's without hard evidence so I could never say for sure it does exist. I would take an educated guess and say it probably does (i'm about 70%), but that doesn't equate to a belief. (i.e something I consider to be true as 30% is too large).

[MajorTomWaits99]

selliedjoup wrote

You're happy with the conclusion you have devised irrespective of its relevance.



Case and point.


You seem to confuse me with you. I don't look to science for answers on this topic.

Superflouous based on what?


Not at all. There are some things that really don't require explanation. Something defined is defined and something undefined is undefined. Hopefully I didn't lose you.




If you take it in isolation, then yes, if you read what I was quoting then it's not.



Why use the word 'essentially' for something non-existant? It either is or isn't. You're lucky you require so little to be content, thank your dna.





No I didn't even remotely say that. I said "causelessness is defined and therefore knowable".So he should present evidence to discount the need for a first cause, if he has any.

Why say "even Remotely"

I said Essentially because I AM AGNOSTIC. it could exist. But as far as logic and science are concerned: Its not.

You seem to confuse me with you. I don't look to science for answers on this topic.

So you admit that it's a faith issue and cannot be proved?

Fair enough. Congrats for you. You're forwarding a belief with lack of evidence.

And Please do me a favor and don't talk down to me.

If you take it in isolation, then yes, if you read what I was quoting then it's not.

I re-read it please elaborate what you mean without writing it off with a pejorative

You're happy with the conclusion you have devised irrespective of its relevance.

I'm Sorry...did you say explanation I Devised? As IN I created them? Pulled them out my ass ...well that's very interesting

Actually the whole idea of the burden of proof has been made FOR A WHILE. Its basic logic actually. And yes the Burden Is On you.

If its a faith Issue: Great for you. that's nice just don't say it's an objective fact. Because its not.

Superflouous based on what?


Not at all. There are some things that really don't require explanation. Something defined is defined and something undefined is undefined. Hopefully I didn't lose you.

So you're saying you can use a word to define itself. "You're a Bunghole Bunghole"-Butthead.
Fantastic.

why doesn't it require an explanation? I mean assuming you're correct this is THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVER EVER. Shouldn't we have evidence for it? I mean Dear GOD (Blasphemy and for you) how dare you hold back this information from us. LET US GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF THEM ALL.

You're lucky you require so little to be content, thank your dna.

...You mean LIke a Made Up Man in the Sky. Or a Religious text the first half of which has been written by about four misc. people and then the latter half written by a series of writers altering a popular prophet's history in order to adhere to a "Prophecy".



This argument is going in circles. Why? Because this is a total faith issue. You can't provide evidence yet you insist there is. However if there isn't that means this is faith. Belief without evidence.

[selliedjoup]

nkb wrote

I think you're missing the point, Anthony.


The first cause is undefined and unknowable...because Jerry says so! It's a brilliant tactic.

Geez you're thick. The first cause is undefined based on the traits you require for scientific validation. You place science at the centre of your universe. If god is unknowable, it would be unknowable (Sorry it's merely a byproduct of being unknowable). Are you claiming that it's knowable and does or doesn't exist? and if so based on what?

This is where you'll fuck it up as no one has given you an answer and you'll have to try and think for yourself. Stick with occam's razor. It seems the most simple explanation suits the most simple.

Young Earth Creationism is unknowable, therefore can't be discounted. Man, I hope those YECs don't catch on to this logic, it would be devastating to geologists and biologists.

You're really not a smart man are you, but do you know what love is? That's a poor comparison as there is evidence to discount creationism. Do you have the same to discount a first cause? I keep asking you for it, but you seem to address those who discount evolution or thor. Maybe if you didn't try to emulate Dawkins you may have a better chance at actually addressing something being discussed? Until then you're welcome to play, but my reponses will be limited apart from pointing out your stupidity and irrelevance*

[MajorTomWaits99]

selliedjoup wrote

Geez you're thick. The first cause is undefined based on the traits you require for scientific validation. You place science at the centre of your universe. If god is unknowable, it would be unknowable (Sorry it's merely a byproduct of being unknowable). Are you claiming that it's knowable and does or doesn't exist? and if so based on what?

This is where you'll fuck it up as no one has given you an answer and you'll have to try and think for yourself. Stick with occam's razor. It seems the most simple explanation suits the most simple.



You're really not a smart man are you, but do you know what love is? That's a poor comparison as there is evidence to discount creationism. Do you have the same to discount a first cause? I keep asking you for it, but you seem to address those who discount evolution or thor. Maybe if you didn't try to emulate Dawkins you may have a better chance at actually addressing something being discussed? Until then you're welcome to play, but my reponses will be limited apart from pointing out your stupidity and irrelevance*

If you're so intelligent and complex explain the complex argument. Well he's not knowable.
Therefore God...according to you does not exist.


I created the universe...everything about twenty minutes ago with implanted memories and everything. EVidence to significantly lower the probability of this happening, and have created morals and abstract MAN-Made ideas and claimed them as my creation.
BECAUSE I Created you you are all mine though I exercise no outward expression of this. I am untestable and Unknowable.
Prove that I am not God.

And Don't ask me to perform a Miracle Do not tempt me shallow one.

I am a cruel and terrible God. But I Love you. I Sacrificed three times throughout human history to absolve you of all your sins. Be grateful.

I Am the alpha and The beta...all the way to the Omega.

Prove that I am not Power. PRove that I am not Love. Prove that I am not Vengeance.


I am also Reification ironically enough.

[Sternwallow]

You believe in your Atheistic stance, you yourself have admitted you do not know that a god does or doesn't exist. It is therefore a belief.

Quite wrong, Jerry.

Neither position has any evidence so, to take a stand that god exists or that god doesn't exist would be belief. Not taking a stand either way, while admitting that either one could be true is a lack of belief and it does not negate anything.

I do not believe in my atheistic stance; it is a complete fact that I do not believe in any god. I know with certainty that I do not believe in a god even though there is a slight possibility that it might exist.

Postulating a first cause that has no other characteristics or capabilities adds nothing to the understanding of the origin of the universe. Therefore that postulate is equivalent to its own contradiction and therefore meaningless. It has no information content.

[psychodiva]

dogpet wrote

Best to sway away from his h/e fantasies, aka male god* luv.

The manus is strong in selly.

LOL

[ILOVEJESUS]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

If you're so intelligent and complex explain the complex argument. Well he's not knowable.
Therefore God...according to you does not exist.


I created the universe...everything about twenty minutes ago with implanted memories and everything. EVidence to significantly lower the probability of this happening, and have created morals and abstract MAN-Made ideas and claimed them as my creation.
BECAUSE I Created you you are all mine though I exercise no outward expression of this. I am untestable and Unknowable.
Prove that I am not God.

And Don't ask me to perform a Miracle Do not tempt me shallow one.

I am a cruel and terrible God. But I Love you. I Sacrificed three times throughout human history to absolve you of all your sins. Be grateful.

I Am the alpha and The beta...all the way to the Omega.

Prove that I am not Power. PRove that I am not Love. Prove that I am not Vengeance.


I am also Reification ironically enough.

This makes so much sense. I suspected it for a while. This si incredible, I have finally discovered the truth.

[MajorTomWaits99]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

This makes so much sense. I suspected it for a while. This si incredible, I have finally discovered the truth.

YES...You shall Take My Word and SPREAD IT.

NOW GO FORTH...you Shall have many children...not in that abrahamic way...I mean Go out and fuck as many people as possible. My WILL BE DONE

[Sternwallow]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

YES...You shall Take My Word and SPREAD IT.

NOW GO FORTH...you Shall have many children...not in that abrahamic way...I mean Go out and fuck as many people as possible. My WILL BE DONE

Not a fair command! God and His minions already fuck everyone in sight regardless of age or social standing. The unplucked pickings are scarce.

[MajorTomWaits99]

Make It Work!

[dogpet]

jerry wrote

Back to that redundant point? No I think the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

Yes but are you sure it doesn't? I mean you've stated you're 70% certain there is a supernatural, so by that standard how can you rule out any supernatural claims? Nessie might only appear at times of it's own choosing according to your belief.

Why do I equally have to think one or the other, have you decided that if you do not know anything for sure, it's 50/50?

You offered that your god* may exist, but without giving a probability. If you had meant it couldn't be completely ruled out then no-one could argue with you. Little green men may land a space ship in Hyde Park tomorrow. The fact you meant it as an affirmation was lost on us until now.

A first cause is either true or false, based on the circumstantial evidence to hand I would say it does exist, but it's without hard evidence so I could never say for sure it does exist. I would take an educated guess and say it probably does (i'm about 70%), but that doesn't equate to a belief. (i.e something I consider to be true as 30% is too large).

You can take an educated guess you won't poke your eye out next time you use a fork, but I'd put it at 50/50. No atheist negates the possibility of a first cause, they simply state there is no way to weigh it due to absence of evidence. For that you need unfounded belief, which you have in more than two thirds abundance. When you attribute mad skilz like intelligence & craftwork to this non thing that is beyond physics, we have a lack of belief.

You got it yet Jerry?

[Sternwallow]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

Make It Work!

Well, OK, but it will mean that quite a few folks will be multi-fucked, not a very nice fate.

[MajorTomWaits99]

Sternwallow wrote

Well, OK, but it will mean that quite a few folks will be multi-fucked, not a very nice fate.

listen to Bieber: it happens for a reason.


Remember the Scariest Lost Commandment of All:

GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS

[Sternwallow]

What's mysterious about getting fucked royally by God?