Groundhog's day

[Irreligious]

Jerry, what the fuck is your point? Are you insisting that we should believe in the existence of an undefineable "it?" Why should we do that and what about that fact that you choose to do that makes you a better human being than anyone else here?

[Choobus]

selliedjoup wrote

What would the magical unicorns actually account for, or what would they help explain?

The same as your pathetic religion you cunt. That's the fucking point retard.

[lostsheep]

In terms of man made objects, distinction b/w 'why vs. how" are relevant, for example: why were the pyramids built vs. how were the pyramids built. "Why" generally implies a purpose which implies a creator, and is anthropomorphic in origin, but this is not a necessary assumption for the natural world. It is natural for people to ask "why" something is thus, b/c human brains work this way: it's called anthropomorphism.

However, just because our minds think like this does not mean that's how the universe actually works. In fact, the "why vs. how" distinction in regard to natural phenomena is blurred. You could ask "how did craters on the moon come to exist?" or "why does the moon have craters?" Neither Q in this case is strictly correct or incorrect. Similarly, you can ask why it is that giraffes have long necks. One answer could be: so they can reach taller trees. Or, you could say that they evolved long necks because it was a survival advantage. "Why vs. how" is just semantics in regard to the natural world, not some critical difference in thought process.

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

The “it” is something I consider to be possible , which can account for something which is potentially unknowable

So, in summary, an undefined thing that may or may not be a thing may or may not exist in order to explain something that may or may not be the case, but we do not know and may never know whether it is or is not the case, and thus we may never know whether or not this undefined non/thing is even necessary?

You're right. That's not bullshit. It's utterly meaninglessness.

selliedjoup wrote

You choose to dismiss the why on a whim...

No, I choose to dismiss your claim that a why is required because you have not shown me evidence that a why is required.

selliedjoup wrote

...yet it has not been scientifically proven that a why is not required...

The fact that I was able to suggest a scenario in which a why is not required shows that a why is not required.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that your undefined thing that may or may not be a thing actually is required.

selliedjoup wrote

You’ve voluntarily cornered your conclusion by accepting only answering the how’s as it’s meet occam’s razor.

I've answered only the questions that have been shown to exist. The universe exists, so a "how" is, in fact, required, since the universe reached its current state by some kind of mechanism.

I have also demonstrate that a why is not required, and thus I feel no need to provide an answer to a question that does not necessarily exist.

selliedjoup wrote

John baked a cake, but then John has died.

Your analogy presupposes your conclusion.

You have deliberately chosen an analog to represent the universe (in this case, a "cake") which we know to require a creator (in this case, "John"). But the universe is unlike a cake in that you haven't shown that the universe requires a creator. At best, you've proposed an undefined "it" that you admit you have no evidence to support.

[quote=selliedjoup]So why did John bake the cake? Your position would state there is no why, as here is the cake.[/color]
My position is more aptly described as:

There is a crater on the moon. The planet from which the meteorite originated was destroyed in a supernova. Why did the planet send the meteorite to form the crater?

You surely must agree that there is no "why." Neither the planet nor the meteorite were intelligent agents capable of doing anything within intention.

The crater, like the universe, has an entirely naturalistic explanation that requires no "why."

selliedjoup wrote

Provide full proof of the cause of the universe...

Again: I've provided an scenario that demonstrates a universe without a "cause." The universe never began. It always was.

selliedjoup wrote

Until then, your position will only be an alternative.

But it will remain a more plausible, likely, and reasonable alternative than yours.

And, unlike yours, it enjoys the benefit of being defined.

selliedjoup wrote

One can choose to use science as the only means if one is only seeking an answer to the how’s.

Not necessarily.

Scientific methodology can be applied to "whys," but the only "whys" that to be found regard the motivations behind behaviors carried out by intelligent beings acting with purpose.

If you are proposing that your undefined "it" is an answer to a "why" question, then you are further defining "it." "It," along with being male (and, therefore, having a penis) must now also be an intelligent entity that acts for a purpose.

You see, despite insisting that you make no claims about your potential undefined "it," the things you say around "it" require certain attributes about it.

selliedjoup wrote

You, of course, realise for something to be complete would require time?

Perhaps in the physics of the known universe.

But you can't make statements about what a process occurring within the unknown physics of a gravitational singularity, since they are "beyond our current comprehension."

selliedjoup wrote

Given the alternative does not answer the question, I wouldn’t call it valid.

The fact that my alternative does not require your intelligent male "it" does not mean that it doesn't answer the question.

Given that it explains the origin of the universe, it is as valid as your proposal, and more parsimonious to boot.

selliedjoup wrote

And how do you know this?

Do you understand "hows" and "whys" differently?

selliedjoup wrote

No because I make no claims about it.

But you do. It is male, since you call it a "he." It is intelligent, since you propose it as an answer to a "why" question, implying that it acts with purpose.

You may believe that you make no claims, but your words tell another story.

selliedjoup wrote

You choose to work on the assumption all we know, entails all of what exists.

So when I said that I would guess that we don't know all there is to know, you assumed that I meant that I thought we did know all there is to know?

How did you draw the opposite conclusion from my words?

selliedjoup wrote

Yes but you don’t know it. So it only becomes an alternative for a point where the universe may have ‘begun’.

I guess I have to say this again.

I described a scenario in which the universe did not "begin" at all. It always existed.

selliedjoup wrote

...it eventually requires an uncaused cause.

Unless the universe did not begin, in which case it requires no cause at all.

selliedjoup wrote

I will define nmm as potentially an uncaused cause.

That's odd, since you said in post #221 of this thread that:

"I can't reconcile an uncaused cause"

Can you reconcile an uncaused cause, or not? Or can you only reconcile one if it lacks any definition, except that it is male, intelligent, and uncaused?

[quote=selliedjoup]Are you proposing that once we understand the singularity that all will be understood?[/color]
I'm proposing that it might be.

Prove that it won't be.

selliedjoup wrote

So if the universe has always existed it’s existed for an infinite number of cyclical rebirths. How did we get to the point of now, if infinity has been before us?

Are you proposing that time cannot progress on an infinite scale?

selliedjoup wrote

The full picture won’t be in our lifetime...

Is this something you know, or something you dreamed up?

selliedjoup wrote

...so I would prefer to view it as the glass is half full.

Half full of what? Undefined male intelligent uncaused "its"?

Why make assumptions with incomplete information. Given that we don't know how much we don't know, the likelihood that your assumption is incorrect approaches absolute certainty.

selliedjoup wrote

The difference is I assume there could be a why.

Precisely. You assume one.

Wishful thinking defined.

selliedjoup wrote

to be continued...

Not to be impolite, but don't bother.

We're just going to keep going `round and `round on this infinitely regressive carousel that might or might not exist.

[Choobus]

"debating" with jerry is like punching a bucket of shit, without even a niblet of corn for your trouble.

[nkb]

Yes, Jerry does resemble a bucket of shit, but I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying Anthony's pummeling of said bucket, corn or no corn.

[Smellyoldgit]

[nkb]

No corn, I see.

[ghoulslime]

Jerry is reserving the corn for his grand butt-sputtering finale.

[psychodiva]

nkb wrote

Yes, Jerry does resemble a bucket of shit, but I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying Anthony's pummeling of said bucket, corn or no corn.

Ditto

[anthonyjfuchs]

I'm mildly amused by my own slippery grip on the English language.

Six mistakes in post #244, not including formatting errors? Sad...

[Smellyoldgit]

You've a long way to go to match Jerry's 65 glaring goofs in this thread so far.

[nkb]

Smellyoldgit wrote

You've a long way to go to match Jerry's 65 glaring goofs in this thread so far.

And that's just the errors in logic. If we start counting grammatical errors, we'll be here all week.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Do you understand "hows" and "whys" differently?

It's a shame you pick and choose selected parts of what I've written and don't bother to address others.

I view hows and whys differently as they're different.

[selliedjoup]

Simoon wrote

It's not that you have a different opinion, it's that you don't understand the atheist position.

And the frustrating thing is, that you've been corrected repeatedly by many here.

Here's a perfect example. Where did I ever say that I claim absolute certainty. In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite.

Here's a short list by me and others:

Do you have a reading comprehensions problem? Do you have a problem with the concepts quoted above?

I understand perfectly what you claim your Atheism to be, but if you didn't present your beliefs with such aversion to those who don't agree with you I'd believe you. Until then I'm calling bullshit.

You use this position as some "get out of jail free card" but you don't apply it all times, only when your supposed neutrality is questioned.

I really consider this group to be the biggest bunch of conceited wankers I've come across on net forums, and that's saying something.