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.

[selliedjoup]

Qlidnaque wrote

selliedjoup, why don't you stop trying to go in circles with this argument and just show us some solid proof that your god exists. Then we can stop this discussion and either say a) you are right and there is a god or b) you are hallucinating and your words are not to be taken seriously.

You ask me to stop going around in circles and then ask a question to continue going around in circles.

[MajorTomWaits99]

I've been skimming this thread and it reminds me of many arguments (including one with Frank...yes I will metnion it ad naseum) Where I got the person to admit God is anti-matter:

God Is Energy?
No.
God Is Made of matteR?
No.
Does God Exist?
No.


Therefore God Is Anti-matter?

"I don't know what Anti-Matter Is"

[dogpet]

selliedjoup wrote

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Jelly's unknowable first cause defined as a "catalyst", require pre-existing unknowable items to influence? This would make his god* a piss stained johnny come lately in the non existent pantheon of unknowables.

[Sternwallow]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I quite like the idea of a star shitting penguin , if I am honest that would be more plausable than an all powerfull unknown. I have seen a penguin after all. Now to find one that shits stars. Or maybe dark matter, and pissing dark energy. That would put the LHC in its place.

Of course the SSP might have been real and simply gone extinct some 14 Billion years ago. Just as the "First Cause" or YHWH or Jehovah.

[Qlidnaque]

selliedjoup wrote

If Flanbo does nothing, what is its purpose? I’ve already proposed the “first cause” is just that. Nothing and a first cause are not the same, I assure you of this. As you obviously don’t get it, just take my word for it. You apply bizarre reasoning to equate a cause to nothing and then state I’m not self aware for not following your views. That’s deluded and a little fucked in the head.

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. 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.

On a side note, after browsing this forum, I was unsurprised to find you thought the “Invention of Lying” to be entertaining. You’re not really a deep thinker are you?

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.

Also, Ricky Gervais just came across as a bitter and angry man with his “Thank God” statement, although he represented your lot very well.

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.

If a first cause does exist, why must we know the answer? You assume that all must be knowable, otherwise why would you take your ‘default’ position? Or course you will deny knowing everything, but in practical terms you behave as if you know everything by denying what you don’t know. Otherwise why would you continually ask me to define it and transform it into something which is ‘known’. And don’t think I didn’t notice “creature” in there to imply something which should be knowable.

As you have guessed, no we do not know everything, that's just an absurd thing for anyone (religious or not) to state. And we do not need to know the first cause. What we are saying however is that just because we don't know everything, it doesn't allow us to jump to conclusions and say there must be a god or a superior alien race that created it all. The only thing it entitles us to say is that WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know if the Big Bang was the definitive start of the universe, We don't know if there is a genuine purpose to life, We don't know if a god exists or not, We don't know if the world will come to an end, heck, we don't even know if evolution is the true answer to our biological ancestry, just an educated guess we can conclude to that is most likely from observing our surrounding environment. And you should be doing the same thing, you should be saying that you don't know if god exists or not either just like we say we don't know whether all of the claims made by science is true or not. When we are acting like we know everything, it's because we are acting like we don't know, and only from making educated guesses. Even though we don't know for 100% certainty whether or not evolution is real or whether the presence of a god is absent, we can make an educated guess that based on observed evidence, the likelihood of the theory of evolution being true is much more likely than some supernatural god like the flying sphagettie monster or the christian or islamic god from existing. If you are not making a claim, there's no need for you to must know the answer. That's what we're doing, we're explicitly saying we don't know based on our gathered evidence. However, if you are going to make a claim that a entitly like a god exists, which contradicts some of our scientific evidence, then it's your duty to come up with the evidence and prove to us that our past observance of our surroundings was wrong and that you were right. You are suggesting something more improbable so the reponsibility is on you to convince us.

On what grounds do you negate it, that it cannot be unknowable? You have no valid alternatives for a cause. Proposing a defined thing with no purpose (such as “Flanbo”) draws no parallels to an unknowable first cause, in fact, you may even notice they’re in direct contrast to each other.

When we said it cannot be unknowable is because you specifically claim a god that has supernatural abilities observable by science. When a god is talking to billions of people wirelessly through the world, he must at the least be making some molecular changes inside your brain, however small, to communicate to you the message. Or if not in your brain, in whatever surround near you to communicate you. That's an explicity, scientificly observable fact. If you aren't making such a claim, our default stance is in fact, that it really cannot be knowable, not unknowable. We are in fact agnostics, though also from the stance that it's extremely improbable because of observable science. When we say it cannot be unknowable, we are saying this in reference to your specific god which has supernatural powers which interact with our known world. If you claimed a god that just sits up there in the sky and does nothing, we'd have to agree with you that it cannot be knowable.

[MajorTomWaits99]

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. 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 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.



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.




As you have guessed, no we do not know everything, that's just an absurd thing for anyone (religious or not) to state. And we do not need to know the first cause. What we are saying however is that just because we don't know everything, it doesn't allow us to jump to conclusions and say there must be a god or a superior alien race that created it all. The only thing it entitles us to say is that WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know if the Big Bang was the definitive start of the universe, We don't know if there is a genuine purpose to life, We don't know if a god exists or not, We don't know if the world will come to an end, heck, we don't even know if evolution is the true answer to our biological ancestry, just an educated guess we can conclude to that is most likely from observing our surrounding environment. And you should be doing the same thing, you should be saying that you don't know if god exists or not either just like we say we don't know whether all of the claims made by science is true or not. When we are acting like we know everything, it's because we are acting like we don't know, and only from making educated guesses. Even though we don't know for 100% certainty whether or not evolution is real or whether the presence of a god is absent, we can make an educated guess that based on observed evidence, the likelihood of the theory of evolution being true is much more likely than some supernatural god like the flying sphagettie monster or the christian or islamic god from existing. If you are not making a claim, there's no need for you to must know the answer. That's what we're doing, we're explicitly saying we don't know based on our gathered evidence. However, if you are going to make a claim that a entitly like a god exists, which contradicts some of our scientific evidence, then it's your duty to come up with the evidence and prove to us that our past observance of our surroundings was wrong and that you were right. You are suggesting something more improbable so the reponsibility is on you to convince us.




When we said it cannot be unknowable is because you specifically claim a god that has supernatural abilities observable by science. When a god is talking to billions of people wirelessly through the world, he must at the least be making some molecular changes inside your brain, however small, to communicate to you the message. Or if not in your brain, in whatever surround near you to communicate you. That's an explicity, scientificly observable fact. If you aren't making such a claim, our default stance is in fact, that it really cannot be knowable, not unknowable. We are in fact agnostics, though also from the stance that it's extremely improbable because of observable science. When we say it cannot be unknowable, we are saying this in reference to your specific god which has supernatural powers which interact with our known world. If you claimed a god that just sits up there in the sky and does nothing, we'd have to agree with you that it cannot be knowable.

I wish this forum had rep.

Brilliant analysis and though you didn't mention the specific terms this was a GREAT POST:
Ocaam's razor and what have you

[Qlidnaque]

Just standard Dawkins logic

[MajorTomWaits99]

eh I was thinking moreso Standard Sagan logic but whateer I guess Tomato- Tomatuh

[anthonyjfuchs]

I don't negate Selly's undefined, male, intelligent first cause. But I don't not negate it either.

I do, however, negate Selly's disbelief in his belief towards this nebulous magic [man].

[Qlidnaque]

I was actually quite looking forward to Selly's response to my post. I hope the time and effort I put into that post doesn't go to waste..

[nkb]

If you're looking for anything coherent or useful from Jerry (aka Selly), yes, your time and effort were a complete waste.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Causelessness is a valid alternative.

If you propose causelessness is a valid alternative, then you need to present evidence for it, otherwise you're doing what you accuse me of.

If you're proposing quantum foam as uncaused, how do you know that existence (Time, Space and Matter) is not a necessary requirement for this apparent causelessness?

[selliedjoup]

nkb wrote

I did. Please see my BHC above.
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.
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.
Defined as being unknowable? You are a riot!
Incorrect. I dismiss your first cause based on the ridiculous nature and form (or non-form) of it as well.
I do not agree that these things exist. I have no knowledge of unknown/unknowable 'things' (and neither do you).
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.
If I was doing that, you may have a point.
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?
Like I said, you and your strawman need to go get a room.
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.
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.
Ahhh, but we're talking about unknowable penguins. These aren't regular penguins, obviously. They're unknowable star-shitting penguins!
Apparently, you do care, otherwise, why would you bother to mention it?
Indeed!
Nuh-uh, you're the retarded one! So there!
It's unknowable, yet it created the universe? I don't need to inject a creature reference to make your claim ridiculous.
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.
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.

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.

[selliedjoup]

Sternwallow wrote

Being unknown/unknowable is not the same as being undefined. So it is reasonable to state that nothing undefined exists because anything that exists has an observable effect, at least in principle, in the world that would be part of its definition. Incidentally this is why your proposed undefined first cause is invalid.

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.

There are many very specific kinds of natural events that we know are not (intentionally) caused. It is not that we don't know the cause or that the cause is unknowable, there isn't one in principle.

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