Groundhog's day

[MajorTomWaits99]

BECAUSE GOD HAS A TEN FOOT COCK...I Call It the First Cause....UP YOUR ASS



Do Not Question Him.

[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

Geez you're thick.

Geez, you're a retarded little muppet.

selliedjoup wrote

The first cause is undefined based on the traits you require for scientific validation.

Just because you said so. The term "undefined" is a completely meaningless term in the context that you use it in. It's a cheap trick to avoid examination of your anally-extracted explanation.

selliedjoup wrote

You place science at the centre of your universe.

Even if that were true, it beats placing unfounded speculation and wishful thinking at the center of yours.

selliedjoup wrote

If god is unknowable, it would be unknowable (Sorry it's merely a byproduct of being unknowable).

Do you understand the concept of circular reasoning (I'm not sure you do)? You're starting with the "unknowable" assumption, just because you think it makes your arguments easier. It doesn't, it's just a big, fat, hairy copout.

selliedjoup wrote

Are you claiming that it's knowable and does or doesn't exist? and if so based on what?

Am I claiming that your imagined nebulous entity, for which you have presented absolutely nothing except retarded reasoning, is knowable? Do you understand how stupid that question is?

selliedjoup wrote

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.

And it takes a real deep guy like you to add a layer of superfluous complexity, and think it actually explains anything at all.

selliedjoup wrote

You're really not a smart man are you, but do you know what love is?

I'm not the smartest guy around, but, holy shit, compared to you, I look like a fucking genius.

selliedjoup wrote

That's a poor comparison as there is evidence to discount creationism.

You got it all wrong. Creationism is unknowable, so there can't be any evidence against it. You must be thinking of the knowable creationism.

selliedjoup wrote

Do you have the same to discount a first cause?

I have not discounted a first cause, I (and everyone else here) am disounting your presentation of an argument for a first cause. Do you understand the difference?

There may be a first cause, but maybe someone with half a brain should take over for you to try to sell it. Maybe, just maybe, that person will rise above a retarded "undefined thing is undefined" approach. Anything, and I mean anything, is better than that.

[selliedjoup]

MajorTomWaits99 wrote

Why say "even Remotely"

To emphasise the point that nothing I said came close to what you thought I said. It was used to indiciate the amount by which you missed the point. Granted it is hyperbole, but it was in context.

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

Essentially adds nothing to a true or false statement. It's like saying "2+2 = essentially 4".

What does "its not" mean? It doesn't exist? Logic does not demonstrate anything of the sort, in fact based on logic the opposite could easily be said. Science has a limited role, and only illustrates your requirement for science to determine whether it is true or false. Oddly, your logic seems to be based on scientific evidence, so you may as well disregard the inclusion of logic as a prerequisite for your conclusion.

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

A faith in what? You have faith in believing science and your logic may answer the question.

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

I'm proposing it as an option, not as my belief. You refuse to accept it as a possibility as everything must be observable.

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

Try not to get your knickers in a twist sweetie.
That's all anyone does in this type of discussion, don't take it personally. I get told I'm a moron as I don't think the same as many here. I find it moronic that many here restrict their beliefs (and logic) based on science.

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

The difference between a unknowable first cause and an uncaused universe are different as one is impossible to define as it can not be determined or defined (apart from being a first cause). An uncaused universe is defined as it requires the universe to be eternal, which in turn makes an observer look towards scientific evidence and use of logic to the existence of an eternal evidence. Or if the universe just began without reason, then causality must be dismissed.
Any form of explanation is different to something which cannot be known, that's why it's different

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

Why are you asking me to repeat something I've written? I didn't stutter. You use science to reach a conclusion on a topic it does not address.

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.

The whle crux of your perspective is based on the evidence you require, and the form of evidence which you will accept. I don't care that you think it is on me.

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

As is yours. Just don't say yours is objective as it's based on science. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what science is.

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

You seem to miss the point and have a tendency to view a post in isolation and out of context. You asked for a reason why something defined and undefined were different. I then said something defined and undefined are different. To me,it would be like saying black and white are different. I don't think this requires an explanation, but you require one. You're welcome to present your persepctive on why something undefined and defined require an exaplanation to account for their differences.

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.

It's not that it doesn't require an explanation, it may just be impossible to obtain. Of course, back you go to requesting evidence. If you can account for existence with evidence, then another explanation is not required. Until then you're just pissing into the wind.

Your sarcarm is really misdirected on me.

...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".

I don't think it would be a man, nor be in the sky. The rest of your bible rant is irrelevant to anything I consider to be true or have said.

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.

The thing I enjoy most about discussing this with the Atheist here is the failure to recognise the faith required to accept their position. If you are convinced that science must be able to provide an answer to a cause of existence. And if you don't think that science must be able to answer this question, why do you place any value when attempting to answer this question.

Many here like to use Bertrand Russell's teapot as an example. You could also use "One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did" to illustrate your level of faith in science.

[selliedjoup]

nkb wrote

Do you understand the concept of circular reasoning (I'm not sure you do)? You're starting with the "unknowable" assumption, just because you think it makes your arguments easier. It doesn't, it's just a big, fat, hairy copout.

Seemingly you have issue with defining something as that which it is. Black is black as it's black for you may be circular. For most it's something which you accept and move on.

Am I claiming that your imagined nebulous entity, for which you have presented absolutely nothing except retarded reasoning, is knowable? Do you understand how stupid that question is?

I understand how stupid you are which is why I asked it.

And it takes a real deep guy like you to add a layer of superfluous complexity, and think it actually explains anything at all.
I'm not the smartest guy around, but, holy shit, compared to you, I look like a fucking genius.
You got it all wrong. Creationism is unknowable, so there can't be any evidence against it. You must be thinking of the knowable creationism.

All smoke and mirrors huh? What are you trying to imply now with your "creationism is unknowable" ruse, that the earth is only several thousand years old or that the universe was created?

I have not discounted a first cause, I (and everyone else here) am disounting your presentation of an argument for a first cause. Do you understand the difference?

Of course. You seem to consider I place validity on what you discount and then somehow misapply it to what you think to be true.

On what grounds do you not discount a first cause? On the old chestnut of not knowing that a first cuase doesn't eixst?

In theory, do you understand the paradox of when something is unknowable but you still ask for evidence of it? This is something I think you struggle with. It's a very easy concept to understand.

There may be a first cause, but maybe someone with half a brain should take over for you to try to sell it. Maybe, just maybe, that person will rise above a retarded "undefined thing is undefined" approach. Anything, and I mean anything, is better than that.

I'm not trying to sell anything to people without money.

[selliedjoup]

Sternwallow wrote

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.

You're just keeping up a pretence as an attempt to mask your bias.

Given the rigour you use to claim those who do believe are stupid and incorrect, it's safe to assume your "lack of belief" stance is merely a guise to potray you as logical.

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.

You don't need to understand something for it to exist.

[selliedjoup]

dogpet wrote

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.


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.

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?

Does getting it mean agreeing with you? If so, no.

Good to see you used a little green man example this time. Loch Ness gets a little trite after a while.

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

You don't need to understand something for it to exist.

Such as logic. You don't understand it, but it exists.

You do, however, need to understand something to claim that it exists. Otherwise, you're just claiming that Potential Thing X might exist. Sure: and Potential Thing X might not exist. Until we understand what Potential Thing X is supposed to be, there's no way of knowing whether or not it exists, and your insistence that it might exist is matched only by my insistence that it might not exist.

For my part, I'll go ahead and claim that Quarbles might exist. They're unknowable, of course, and we can't understand them, but they might exist.

And Myzthvyx might exist.

And Gringleblatts.




You drooling douchebag.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Such as logic. You don't understand it, but it exists.

You do, however, need to understand something to claim that it exists. Otherwise, you're just claiming that Potential Thing X might exist. Sure: and Potential Thing X might not exist. Until we understand what Potential Thing X is supposed to be, there's no way of knowing whether or not it exists, and your insistence that it might exist is matched only by my insistence that it might not exist.

For my part, I'll go ahead and claim that Quarbles might exist. They're unknowable, of course, and we can't understand them, but they might exist.

And Myzthvyx might exist.

And Gringleblatts.




You drooling douchebag.

C'mon is that really all you have? Proposing something which serves no purpose or even has no need to be proposed?

Should we go over your 'valid' alternatives of the multiverse or the eternal universe again? It's funny that you still haven't offered any viable alternative yet.

Whereas I'm proposing the possibility that a first cause may be unknowable. You use circular logic to proclaim you're correct irrespective of what it science can or can't prove.

I really didn't realise the reasons "for" Atheism were as weak as what you lot proclaim them to be. It's kinda sad really.

[MajorTomWaits99]

selliedjoup wrote

To emphasise the point that nothing I said came close to what you thought I said. It was used to indiciate the amount by which you missed the point. Granted it is hyperbole, but it was in context.




Essentially adds nothing to a true or false statement. It's like saying "2+2 = essentially 4".

What does "its not" mean? It doesn't exist? Logic does not demonstrate anything of the sort, in fact based on logic the opposite could easily be said. Science has a limited role, and only illustrates your requirement for science to determine whether it is true or false. Oddly, your logic seems to be based on scientific evidence, so you may as well disregard the inclusion of logic as a prerequisite for your conclusion.



A faith in what? You have faith in believing science and your logic may answer the question.


I'm proposing it as an option, not as my belief. You refuse to accept it as a possibility as everything must be observable.

Try not to get your knickers in a twist sweetie.
That's all anyone does in this type of discussion, don't take it personally. I get told I'm a moron as I don't think the same as many here. I find it moronic that many here restrict their beliefs (and logic) based on science.



The difference between a unknowable first cause and an uncaused universe are different as one is impossible to define as it can not be determined or defined (apart from being a first cause). An uncaused universe is defined as it requires the universe to be eternal, which in turn makes an observer look towards scientific evidence and use of logic to the existence of an eternal evidence. Or if the universe just began without reason, then causality must be dismissed.
Any form of explanation is different to something which cannot be known, that's why it's different



Why are you asking me to repeat something I've written? I didn't stutter. You use science to reach a conclusion on a topic it does not address.




The whle crux of your perspective is based on the evidence you require, and the form of evidence which you will accept. I don't care that you think it is on me.




As is yours. Just don't say yours is objective as it's based on science. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what science is.



You seem to miss the point and have a tendency to view a post in isolation and out of context. You asked for a reason why something defined and undefined were different. I then said something defined and undefined are different. To me,it would be like saying black and white are different. I don't think this requires an explanation, but you require one. You're welcome to present your persepctive on why something undefined and defined require an exaplanation to account for their differences.



It's not that it doesn't require an explanation, it may just be impossible to obtain. Of course, back you go to requesting evidence. If you can account for existence with evidence, then another explanation is not required. Until then you're just pissing into the wind.

Your sarcarm is really misdirected on me.



I don't think it would be a man, nor be in the sky. The rest of your bible rant is irrelevant to anything I consider to be true or have said.



The thing I enjoy most about discussing this with the Atheist here is the failure to recognise the faith required to accept their position. If you are convinced that science must be able to provide an answer to a cause of existence. And if you don't think that science must be able to answer this question, why do you place any value when attempting to answer this question.

Many here like to use Bertrand Russell's teapot as an example. You could also use "One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did" to illustrate your level of faith in science.

I'm sorry Science doesn't give a meaning. Science is the best system we have to find a description of what we have now you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm sorry But Faith is belief without lack of sufficient evidence. Science is a utilization of evidence in order to find some way to describe WHAT IS in reality.
I don't see how..using this operational (and I'd say generally true) Definition of Faith i Require "Faith" in Science.

Something being clever does not equate it being true.

selliedjoup wrote

C'mon is that really all you have? Proposing something which serves no purpose or even has no need to be proposed?

That's how religion started wasn't it?.

selliedjoup wrote

Whereas I'm proposing the possibility that a first cause may be unknowable. You use circular logic to proclaim you're correct irrespective of what it science can or can't prove.

I really didn't realise the reasons "for" Atheism were as weak as what you lot proclaim them to be. It's kinda sad really.

YOU TOTALLY USE CIRCULAR LOGIC BEFORE

I then said something defined and undefined are different. To me,it would be like saying black and white are different. I don't think this requires an explanation, but you require one. You're welcome to present your persepctive on why something undefined and defined require an exaplanation to account for their differences.

see that you clearly dodged the question. I asked a legitimate questoin because what I DEFINE as Undefined may be different than what YOU DEFINE as Undefined.

I'm trying to eb reasonable here. You literally just snubbed me providing no evidence for your reasoning.


It's not a faith issue but you don't have any scientific evidence to back up your claim.


You have also yet to Disprove my all powerful ability to reconstruct reality

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

Proposing something which serves no purpose or even has no need to be proposed?

Are you proposing that only things that serve a purpose exist?

Are you proposing that a thing cannot exist if it does not serve a purpose?

Are you proposing that only things which need to be proposed exist?

Are you proposing that you, without knowing all there is to know, are capable of determining what needs to be proposed? That you are capable of determining what purposes things may serve? That you are capable of determining all of the purposes that any given thing serves?

Since you don't know all there is to know, you are incapable of determining whether or not any given proposed thing may serve a purpose or not.

An unknowable thing may, after all, serve an unknowable purpose.

Should we go over your 'valid' alternatives of the multiverse or the eternal universe again?

Yes we should, but we should focus on the eternal universe, as that is the only valid alternative I proposed. I don't know where you got this "multiverse" idea from.

It's funny that you still haven't offered any viable alternative yet.

What's funny is that you actually believe that you have the authority to determine what constitutes a viable alternative.

Whereas I'm proposing the possibility that a first cause may be unknowable.

I'm proposing the probability that a first cause is, in fact, unnecessary.

You use circular logic...

You don't know what circular logic is, which is the height of irony, given that you use it like a coke-whore uses...well, coke.

An uncaused universe is defined as it requires the universe to be eternal

A first cause is defined as it is a cause which precedes all other causes, has no cause itself, and possesses at least some rudimentary form of intelligence in order to cause other things.

It may or may not be male, but we shall never know until it decides to reveal its undefined penis. Be sure to let us know when that happens, won't you?

I really didn't realise the reasons "for" Atheism...

What are your reasons "for" using unnecessary "quotation marks," and for unnecessarily capitalizing the word "atheism"?

[ghoulslime]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Are you proposing that only things that serve a purpose exist?

Jerry is a incarnate refutation of this supposition.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

I really didn't realise the reasons "for" Atheism were as weak as what you lot proclaim them to be. It's kinda sad really.

The reasons for atheism are exactly as many as the proposed reasons for theism but the theistic ones are invalidated by the lack of evidence in their favor or by sufficient natural explanations.

You say that a first cause is necessary for a universe that had a beginning. The lack of evidence that the proposition is true is one reason in favor of atheism. So just fill in the blank with whatever feature or event you would cite as supporting theism and, when it is invalidated by its lack of evidence, it will be just another reason in favor of atheism.

An uncreated universe is a viable alternative to a created universe because there is no evidence that creation is necessary, especially in light of material known to come into existence without an intentional creator.

You can no longer claim that no viable alternative has been proposed to the first cause hypothesis.

Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not a kind of belief, it is non-belief or no belief.

I do not believe in atheism nor in science. I tentatively accept, for practical purposes, things for which there is evidence and I have found nothing that must be accepted as definitely true based on insufficient evidence.

[anthonyjfuchs]

I still don't see how causelessness is any more defined than a first cause.

He claims that causelessness requires an eternal universe. Where's the problem? There is evidence that the universe exists, and there is no evidence that the universe ever didn't exist. So all of the evidence supports the existence of the universe, and none of the evidence supports the non-existence of the universe.

[MajorTomWaits99]

It could be the logic being followed that everything that we know exists has a beginning and an end...therefore EVERYTHING DOes...including the universe

[anthonyjfuchs]

Strictly speaking, nothing has a beginning or an end, since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. All it can do is change form ad infinitum.