Groundhog's day

[anthonyjfuchs]

I'd still like to know where I defined "causelessness."

Selly's first cause is, after all, more defined than causelessness. A first cause, by it's very nature, is a cause which precedes all other causes, and is uncaused. That's two elements of definition inherent in a first cause, demonstrating that Selly is full of shit when he insists that his first cause is undefined.

Causelessness, on the other hand, is entirely without definition or description. It is, unlike a first cause, not a thing at all, and therefore cannot be defined.

[Simoon]

selliedjoup wrote

Also in your view the two are not mutually exclusive, I assure you they are mutually exclusive.

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.

You guys are not remotely agnostic you state you are as a means to present yourself as logical and impartial.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Yes, I was presenting your belief and how it applies to your view. I need to know to believe, you believe without knowing.

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

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

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.

You are so lost.

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.

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

So then what you believe (i.e. your atheism) is just bullshit and not worth saying.

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

ANd what does that mean today? negate or absense?

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'.

[dogpet]

selliedjoup wrote

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?

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.

[nkb]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Selly's first cause is, after all, more defined than causelessness. A first cause, by it's very nature, is a cause which precedes all other causes, and is uncaused. That's two elements of definition inherent in a first cause, demonstrating that Selly is full of shit when he insists that his first cause is undefined.

Causelessness, on the other hand, is entirely without definition or description. It is, unlike a first cause, not a thing at all, and therefore cannot be defined.

I think you're missing the point, Anthony.

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

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.

[Jimble]

Simoon wrote

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.

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?

This. Also, what Stern said. Dodge, Jerry, dodge.

[lostsheep]

I agree the above: equating belief with knowledge, or redefining these terms, is a tactic this guy uses to feel that he is being logical, when in fact, he simply engaging in wishful thinking.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Apologetics 101: redefine inconvenient terms.

[Sol]

I know there is no risk of being repetitive on this thread. Being as how that is
the whole point of it....
But..

selliedjoup wrote

Or like a bent over scotsman and an english cock?

I'd rather like that inconvenient term redefined, if only for the sake of accuracy and preference.

[psychodiva]

maybe he refers to male chickens?

[dogpet]

psychodiva wrote

maybe he refers to male chickens?

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

The manus is strong in selly.

[selliedjoup]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

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.

Not at all. You require a definition not me. The first cause argument is logical and we require something beyond what we can presently (or potentially) observe. You seek to negate it by using an alien's supercomputer that is your choice, but if you define it you require evidence to back it up. I remain open to the possibility of it in the absense of evidence due to both logic and probability (first cause and anthropic principle). You remain closed in the absense of evidence and seek to 'define' it with random examples to prove your point. Where they prove nothing except demonstrating your penchant for defintions.
Why would I wait for something which is potentially undiscoverable? Depending on science in this way can only restrict your philosophy. You need to go elsewhere.

[ghoulslime]

Fuck you, Jerry. You are a complete dip shit with no redeemable qualities.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Where did I define causelessness?

You don't need to define it, it is defined by what it does. If you state the universe is uncaused, then you would think you have a justifable reason for doing so. You're attempting to propose a defined thing is the same as an undefined thing, yet protest when I state the the defined thing (i.e an uncaused universe) contradicts your base belief of requiring proof to assert anything. The likellihood that the singularity caused the universe seems to be high reasonably and asserting that causality is disregarded for things which begin to exist is not a strong position. Go with it, if you feel it illustrates your point. But there's no reason to believe it.

That which were are proposing caused.

Do you understand the difference between stating something is unknowable and proposing something?

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

Nope, I hold the belief that it may exist. You really struggle when claiming the unknowable and /or first cause are my own concept. They're not new

Neither do all atheists.

Most atheists just lack belief in gods.

That's the same thing as negating if you lack belief in a god as you do in a leprechaun.

You said that you lack belief toward your first cause.

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

Haha no. Try re-reading what I wrote - they obviously mean different things to you.

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

This is now intended for you.

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

I do not believe that a first cause doesn't exist. I lean towards one existing, but believe to me (and most other people) is something that you consider to be true. If I cannot state with 99% assuredness I don't consider it to be true so I won't believe it. You may believe something with 2% probability to be true, that's your call.But ultimately your beliefs (such as Atheism) result in being essentially worthless

Yep.

Nope. It's agnostic. Your place value on what you believe which is only based on your bias and not your requried facts. I feel sorry for Atheists really. If Richard Dawkins is viewed as an example for Atheists aspire to, then it says it all.

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.

No you said I was an Atheist which is why I said you defined me as one. I believe that it may (or even probably) exists, is that an Atheist's perspective?

Coin or no coin.

Exactly, back to your theist viewpoint as a foundation. Try Nietzsche he may help you get it.

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

Yes of course. If you hold no view on whether something does or doesn't exist, then by default, you believe it doesn't exsit. Whether you state you don't disbelieve in it is irrelvant. Can you tell me what you lack belief in but don't disbelieve in apart from a first cause/god etc? I will pre-empt the inane answer ofleprechauns/unicorns by stating their existence accounts for nothing, I disbelieve thaat leprechauns exist. If you state you genuinely lack belief in leprechauns then there's no where to go and your perspective is just semantics.

What you buy or don't buy is irrelevant.

That you think "What you buy or don't buy is irrelevant" is irrelevant.

It's something I know.

Of course it is.

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


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

You're retarded. It's got nothing to do with the definitions of the words, but the point at which I believe something to be true.

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

So you believe or know red is red?

It only seems that way because you are a moron.

It seems that way as it's true. Otherwise you have no reason to be involved in this discussion to which you hold no belief towards. There needs to be an emotive element to it, unless you're a droid and based on your logic that's not the case.

No they don't. They believe it.

Yes they do, they said they know. How do you manage to apply your belief set to theirs and then tell them they only believe. Arrogance? Conviction? Devoutness?


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


Utility.

What's a "dominant paradigm"?


All that changes is our ability apprehend the truth.

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

No it's not. What you consider to be the truth based on various scientific theories may be shown to be untrue. For example, most would have considered the world to be flat as a truth. Truths are solely down to available perception. WHat absolute truths do you have at your disposal to back up your claim of truth being immune to shifts?

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

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 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.

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

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


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 can never prove that a non-existent god doesn't exist. It's really not that hard.
[quote]
Does this garbage make sense to you?

Because it's meaningless gibberish to the rest of us.
[quote]
If you have no response it's a good refuge

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

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

of course. It's dependent on the person's perspective in conjunction with paradigms of the day. You're convinced your 'truth' is correct, as everyone is. The level of conviction which you display doesn't make it true. Truth is timeless.

[selliedjoup]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

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

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

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.

Case and point.

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.

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

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.

Superflouous based on what?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

I'd still like to know where I defined "causelessness."

Selly's first cause is, after all, more defined than causelessness. A first cause, by it's very nature, is a cause which precedes all other causes, and is uncaused. That's two elements of definition inherent in a first cause, demonstrating that Selly is full of shit when he insists that his first cause is undefined.

You're really struggling aren't you? I said it's undefined with regards to traits, such as the blue hair red shoes which atheists require. The name defines what it is. So are you going to negate it now it's been 'defined'?

Causelessness, on the other hand, is entirely without definition or description. It is, unlike a first cause, not a thing at all, and therefore cannot be defined.

Not at all you're implying that existence began for no reason, or due to any particular cause. So if you disregard causality, which there is no reason to do so, your position is perfectly valid.