Groundhog's day

[selliedjoup]

dogpet wrote

Right. Like demented & escort on hospital visit.

Or like a bent over scotsman and an english cock?

[selliedjoup]

Simoon wrote

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

Oh bloody hell, try reading the post I'm addressing. He said I was an atheist and made no mention of being agnostic. Also in your view the two are not mutually exclusive, I assure you they are mutually exclusive. You guys are not remotely agnostic you state you are as a means to present yourself as logical and impartial. Of which you are neither, play your cards and be proud of them. If you were an agnostic you wouldn't present views to continually negate anything which could suggest the existence of a god. Just be honest, it's all too obvious anyway

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.

Yet there is no justifiable reason to believe a god doesn't exist. Odd isn't it?

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 need to know something to believe it. Maybe you believe something based on a whim or which way the wind is blowing. It's got nothing to do with using the terms correctly, as I'm sure you'd like to present. You may as well use "randomly guess" instead of believe in this context.

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

Yes, I was presenting your belief and how it applies to your view. I need to know to believe, you believe without knowing. Hopefully you can understand this difference. On a topic such as this not believing is the same as saying I guess that x does or doesn't exist, but I have no reasons to think this apart from my own preference. So then what you believe (i.e. your atheism) is just bullshit and not worth saying.

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

ANd what does that mean today? negate or absense?

[selliedjoup]

Qlidnaque wrote

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.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying I don't disblelieve in something (which may be unknowable) I simply don't know, you disbelieve in something irrespetive of whether it's unknowable.

I'm saying a first cause 'god' (if you want to call it that) may have caused existence. In the absense of evidence to either prove or disprove a god, and with existence requiring an answer, a first cause cannot be discounted.

The complexity of a thing has nothing to do whether a thing exists or not. If you're implying that it comes down to estimating the probability of something based on its complexity, but it's potentially unknowable- I have no idea how you would calculate the probability of something unknowable.

This is simply a ploy by Dorkins to promote his anti-theist perspective, while attempting to present it in the guise of being 'scientific'.

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.

If it exists, I don't claim a god didn't do anything. Otherwise its existence would be redundant. I don't think humans are capaable of answering all things in life. You're assuming your conclusion by stating no one can give answers where no answer exists, if you assume (as you have stated) that humans by using science can obtain all answers. We can only ever know what we are capable of knowing, this doesn't mean the unknowable doesn't exist simply because we can't know it.

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.

I'm arguing for the possibility of a god. That's where most here (including you) miss the point. I'm arguing for an first cause god, which is potentially unknowable. No one here is able to present any valid proven scientific options to account for the equivalent of a first cause. In the absense of any viable alternative, an unknowable first cause cannot be discounted.

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.

The movie was boring, unfunny and lacked any depth on any level. People with similar traits would enjoy it

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.

If you can't understand a perspective (which is the case based on your incorrect assumptions)which I've presented on numerous occations, and then state I can't forumlate an argument, you should step back, re-read what I've said (including disregarding any of your assuptions)and try again.

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).

Ok, you're not the brightest fellow around. How old are you? Religion typically requires an organised group, which espouses a belief based on a set of ideas and ideals. I belong to no religion. I lean towards deism in the absense of knowing. Believing is the same as guessing which holds no value or weight whatsoever. I put forward the possibility that a first cause may exist, in the absense of a valid alternative. If you believe a god exists you are a theist, which is not necessarily religious.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

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

Ok just to keep this going. I hold a belief that the first cause deity may exist, how does that fit on your schema of beliefs?

[selliedjoup]

Sternwallow wrote

Did you just say that the universe created itself?

And you say this based on....?

The universe exists but it might have had no cause.
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.

That's not unknowable, just a limitation on what is able to be achieved at the moment. This just shows you're able to define what is unobtainable. No doubt that is how you view of determining a 'first cause' as well. Such a strange belief set to uphold when it will be limited by what is able to be determined within your lifetime.

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.

A first cause has no impact on reality?

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

So you view anything unknown/unknowable doesn't exist? Much like the number of positve electrons in the centre of Aplha Centauri?

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 for it to be real requires a defintion? This discounts anything which is unknown as being real, therefore by your logic anything unknown isn't real.
Based on scientific materialism which most deem to be limited perspective to apply in answering anything to do with metaphysics.

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.

How do you know existence (time, space and matter) are not necessary for this principle?

[selliedjoup]

Sternwallow wrote

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.

Faith in what you conclude is suitable evidence to account for the absent.

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

You showed it to yourself, did you find it convincing?

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.

Yes I know what it says, but there are several aspects which contribute towards my conclusion. The logic of the first cause is sufficient to accept and the immense improbability of life has required scientific materialists to retreat to the multiverse. Ironically this is same people who claim to require the simplest explanation.

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

It depends which public you're talking to. Majority doesn't rule. Can you claim to know something which is untrue?

You continue to fail to see that atheism is not a belief.

If it wasn't a belief I would 'fail'. Scientific materialsim is a perspective on how to views things. It requires belief in what it espouses. It is a choice which most here accept without any other reason than the belief that it is the 'correct' perspective to apply.You're welcome to view Atheism as a non-belief, as much as I'm welcome to view it as a belief. You'll have to ask yourself why my view bothers you so much, particularly when you're wrong.

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.

Children are agnostic, they don't have a view on god. They are just trying to conceptualise life and understand the order in general. However, if you paid someone enough to have sex and then carry your baby, you would find pretty soon that children search for their own answers. You seem to imply this search is some kind of religious conspiracy as opposed to being human. Atheism requires conscious choices made to negate or even proclaim the pointless absense of faith stance (which does not remotely equate to a child's perspective, despite being childlike)

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.

Funny , "there has not been one verifiable effect on the world that has not been material." It's like saying there has not been one noise that has not been unheard. You assume your conclusions. How do you propose to observe the unobserved?

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.

here's no eivdence for scientific materialism either. The evidence you require is the compelling part. You can claim that your atheism is merely a byproduct of a lack of evidence, if that were the case do you think it's merely a coincidence that you dislike religion? I don't

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.
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.

If a first cause exists, it's safe to say it will be a natural force as whatever exists is natural. You imply that whatever occurs is natural and inherently random, based on nothing but your preference for randomness (highly improbable randomness).

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.

Why would I cite biblical prophesy, my faith, or my minister when I don't have or use any of them? Your post was full of "Do nots" and then "If you do" as if you were dribbling with feverish excitement to state your pointless Joe Pesci example. Your intense hatred of religion just bubbles over every so often. Try cooking with gas and you may have better control.

[psychodiva]

[ILOVEJESUS]

Sellied my friend the danger of your point is that you cannot, it seems, define that which you do not know exists. That is strange. Also who is to say "God" isn't some alien supercomputer that created all physics and universe etc for some alien childs homework? I do not know this is not the case. It is just however , another creation theory that in the general scheme of things is useless, outside of creative philosophical heavy drinking conversation. As we cannot define God, God just becomes a word. Also as there are so many versions of creation, why not wait till we can actually put together theories that at least carry some small amount of mathematic possibility. I just do not see the point in holding doors open for things , just because I cannot prove they do not exist, if said entities are in fact also providing no evidence that they DO exist.

[Sol]

selliedjoup wrote

Or like a bent over scotsman and an english cock?

er.... say what ?

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

A first cause is undefined and potentially unknowable, causelessness is defined and therefore knowable.

Where did I define causelessness?

What are you proposing as uncaused then?

That which were are proposing caused.

I'm not an atheist...

`Course not. You just hold no belief toward your own hypothetical first cause.

I don't negate gods...

Neither do all atheists.

Most atheists just lack belief in gods.

I don't have an absense of belief.

You said that you lack belief toward your first cause.

Do "lack" and "absence" mean different things to you?

Or do you just have an "absense" of sense?

I do not believe that a first cause doesn't exist.

Neither do I. And I don't believe that one does exist.

Is that an atheist?

Yep.

You define me as an atheist by using a theist's perspective.

I don't define you as anything.

But I define an atheist as one who lacks belief, and you have admitted that you lack belief in your own hypothetical first cause.

It's all or nothing huh?

Coin or no coin.

An atheist believes that a god doesn't exist.

Someone who lacks belief in gods believes that a god doesn't exist?

I don't buy the absense of a belief as actually worth anything.

What you buy or don't buy is irrelevant.

Is that a belief or something you know?

It's something I know.

And what do you say about those who claim to know that the supernatural exists?

The same thing I say about those who claim to know anything unknowable.

My belief set is that I can only believe once I know.

That's because you use those words differently than the rest of the English-speaking world.

If the rest of us know, then we don't believe. We know. We only have to believe that which we don't know.

Yours seems to be I don't like religion therefore I believe in atheism...

It only seems that way because you are a moron.

Some relgious types know that their god exists.

No they don't. They believe it.

This is where knowing the definitions of the words would be beneficial to you.

How do you know all of what you know to be true?

Utility.

Dominant paradigms change...

What's a "dominant paradigm"?

...and 'truths' change in accordance to these.

All that changes is our ability apprehend the truth.

The truth is immune to shifts in the "dominant paradigms."

But congratulations on fashioning a phrase that sounds profound while meaning nothing.

Why do you portray your atheism as something you know, yet state you only believe in it.

When did I ever state that I "only believe" atheism? Are you confusing me with yourself, since it has been you, and only you, who has asserted that atheism is a thing to be believed?

You seem to think Atheism is the only option for logical people...

No I don't. I think it's the only option for me.

I can't make myself believing something I don't believe.

...you can never disprove a negative...

Prove that you're not just making shit up by explaining what this senseless is supposed to mean.

Or, if you'd rather, disprove that you are making shit up. Whatever comes more naturally.

...you know you the reasons for your belief is true...

Does this garbage make sense to you?

Because it's meaningless gibberish to the rest of us.

...an absolute truth?

What's the difference between a regular old "truth" and an "absolute truth"?

Is truth not truth? Are there varying degrees of truthiness?

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

Seriously why do you bother to respond?

I enjoy smacking around dimwits who think they're smart, and are arrogant about it.

Why do you bother to respond to me, if you are so very bored?

selliedjoup wrote

...I could stop 'evading'...

You couldn't stop evading if your life depended on it. It's all you have.

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

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.

Pure comedy gold!

Let me give it a shot: Yahweh is unknowable, therefore you can't discount Yahweh.

Hold on, let me give it another shot: Quetzalcoatl is unknowable, therefore you can't discount Quetzalcoatl.

Wait, wait, one last one: Star-shitting penguins are unknowable, therefore you can't discount SSPs.

BRILLIANT! How can someone argue with this kind of impecable logic?

selliedjoup wrote

I'm not an atheist, as I don't negate gods and I don't have an absense of belief.

Have you figured out yet that you don't have a grasp of what being an atheist means? Do you have a clue yet why I accuse you of creating strawmen?

selliedjoup wrote

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.

Ahh, willful ignorance as a basis for argument! Jerry is a sharp one, isn't he?

selliedjoup wrote

Some relgious types know that their god exists.

No, they don't. They don't know jack-shit! They say they know, but, unless you want to throw out the standard definitions of English words, they don't know, they just strongly believe.

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

Yet there is no justifiable reason to believe a god doesn't exist. Odd isn't it?

Not really. You saying that there is no justifiable reason doesn't mean diddlysquat in the real world.

What are your thoughts on Black Hole Creators (BHC), whose purpose is to create black holes? Is there a justifiable reason to believe they don't exist?

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

You showed it to yourself, did you find it convincing?

How is that working for you? Do you actually find any of your own arguments convincing?

[MajorTomWaits99]

selliedjoup wrote

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).

...I'm sorry elaborate on that last part? it just sounds like a bunch of rabble?
The problem is that :

IF you claim that paranomal or supernatural phenomenon X is objective fact, then by definition you are claiming that it is scientifically demonstrated. Objective facts are scientific facts. So we are entitle to a discussion of the evidence.

AND YES in all cases science can only disprove incorrect facts not prove correct ones.

Another problem is that your theory is non-falsifiable and therefore not applicable to science. BECAUSE IT is non-falsifiable it cannot be proven.
See we have a lack of evidence again. And as the proponent of the cause you are required in a civilized discussion to do more than "Is so" you have to provide evidence.


And I'm not looking for "Absolutes". its only people who are afraid of looking stupid or unintelligent that worry about knowing everything. I don't fear the unknown. I simply assess and study it in order to have a better understanding of it. That's why I'm agnostic. I can't disprove God. But one may reasonably say that having Judeo-Christian God starting "LIFE" or starting the Universe is a wholly superfluous idea.

selliedjoup wrote

Your ideas are held against a different standard as they are different. An unknowable first cause is by defintion unknowable.

I'm sorry did you just use Circular Reasonsing? or begging the question?

You are different and as you are different.

That's a completely idiotic statement (religious debate aside) in any format because it doesn't contribute anything to the statement or argument.


Since it is unknowable and can't be proven to interact with the world...it is of no consequence and we can reasonably assume that there's no way of hoenstlyKNOWING it exists other than some sand-dried desert dwellers telling us that it does.

that or the Discovery Institute (REMEMBER ASTROLOGY IS A SCIENCE!!!)

So...you're unknown first cause if it can't be measured in anyway shape or form, is essentially non-existant. There's no point in saying that that is the way it is or even bothering to search for it...because you know...It just doesn't exist in my "materialistic" world. Oh well. Then I'm content.

God Doesn't need to exist people and if he/she does then it doesn't matter anyway. What a relief.

Also your other half is....Tripe?

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.

I'm sorry your first cause can't be knownable ...but it can be measured and is therefore knowable? That makes no sense. Please clarify if you mean something else