|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2006 : 18:33:59 [Permalink]
|
Bill, your cause and effect argument philosophically says only that all things in the material universe abide by the law of cause and effect, and therefore must have a cause that is not itself suspectible to the law of cause and effect. In other words, that argument reduces the definition of God to being:
The force that doesn't require a cause.
It says nothing about whether that force is conscious, and certainly not if that force gives too shits about human beings.
So, yeah, then you move onto the design argument (more mere philosophy with no actual evidence) to argue that the force must be conscious. But, again, nothing from that argument that says the creator must give two shits about human beings.
So how do you get from those two unfalsifiable philosophical ideas to believing specifically in the Christian God? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 18:36:51 [Permalink]
|
Bill, you have conveniently ignored many retorts to your claims. Examples:
-How does your reasoning for why gays shouldn't be permitted to adopt not apply to straight couples adopting children? An abandoned child is an “unnatural” situation (according to your definition of “unnatural”) and thus requires an “unnatural” solution. And that in the animal kingdom in general, child abandonment results in child death - so isn't that the most natural solution for human orphans? Also, what the hell does any of this have to do with morality?
-Atheism is not only the “denial” of gods' existence, but is also “disbelief” (from your own dictionary's definition), which is merely lack of belief. No atheists here have said “I know God didn't create the universe”, and yet you persist in claiming that this is the atheist's argument.
- You made the silly claim a while ago that if God exists then absolute morality must exist, and I and others wrote back and stated using logic why that is a false claim. There could be a supernatural creator and no absolute morality. All we'd need for that is a supernatural creator who doesn't have any opinions about human morality. Given that proving God's existence does not prove absolute morality's existence, why are we debating God's existence in this discussion?
You change the subject frequently, from the original argument of absolute morality, to gay rights to marry, to gay rights to adopt children, to debating the theory of evolution, and the existence of a supernatural creator. Why don't you stick with one subject? Is it because after a particular subject exhausts itself, you can't come up with final retorts against our arguments?
I am interested in this topic, but I do not have the time to debate 10 different topics. If you have evidence of absolute morality, get back to me. If not, start a new discussion about whatever else you want to debate.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 18:58:30 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Not one atheist involved, or reading, this conversation has yet piped in with their logical theory on the origins of life and or PM apart from an eternal creator.
What!? Have you just not even been paying any attention?
-Dude has asked you twice now how you know there ever was a time when physical matter didn't exist. You want a logical argument for the origin of the universe that doesn't require a god - he gave you one: the universe doesn't have an origin because it has always existed in some physical form.
-You want another? How about that the laws of cause and effect don't apply to the conditions of the origin of the universe. We know that our current conception of certain laws of physics (Newtonian) don't apply to the very young universe (read Steven Weinberg's book "The First Three Minutes" written by a Nobel Prize in Physics winner.)
There: 2 logically sound atheistic explanations of the origin of the universe, no more specific than your God. In fact, more specific, since you haven't really defined what you mean by "God". What is a God other than simply an entity that is not suspectible to the natural world (in other words, supernatural)? Existence of a God doesn't alone give human lives any more meaning, nor does it require absolute morality or even an afterlife. This explains why Eastern philosophies and religions haven't dwelled much on the question of God's existence, but rather on reincarnation.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/21/2006 18:59:55 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 19:02:14 [Permalink]
|
It occurs to me that the law of cause and effect is a philosophical, not scientific law. So let's fight fire with fire:
From Wikipedia's entry on "Causality" (this applies to BOTH our debate over the existence of god and absolute morality):
The deterministic world-view is one in which the universe is nothing but a chain of events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect. According to incompatibilists holding this worldview there is no such thing as "free will", and therefore, no such thing as morality. However, compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with, or even necessary for, free will.
Learning to bear the burden of a meaningless universe, and justify one's own existence, is the first step toward becoming the "Übermensch" (English: "overman") that Nietzsche speaks of extensively in his philosophical writings. Existentialists have suggested that people have the courage to accept that while no meaning has been designed in the universe, we each can provide a meaning for ourselves.
In light of the difficulty philosophers have pointed out in establishing the validity of causal relations, it might seem that the clearest plausible example of causation we have left is our own ability to be the cause of events. If this is so, then our concept of causation would not prevent seeing ourselves as moral agents.
To sum up, the same philosophical law that Bill is trying to use to prove the existence of god with has been used by nihilists to prove that life has no meaning, and there is no absolute morality, but only the morality that humans make for ourselves.
Oh the delicious irony! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/21/2006 19:06:12 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 20:05:11 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
What!? Have you just not even been paying any attention?
Bill does this all the time. You corner him and he knows he can't respond without admitting error or fault, he just ignores you.
Kinda like Ricky is doing in a different thread.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:31:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
:-) Buh bye Bill - do your own research. I don't care to discuss it with you anymore. You can call that whatever you want, you won't bruise my ego. I just don't give a shit.
Normally I would just refer you to websites where people much smarter than I discuss such theories, but that has already been done and you don't read them, so what's the friggin' point?
:-) Buh bye Bill - do your own research. I don't care to discuss it with you anymore. You can call that whatever you want, you won't bruise my ego. I just don't give a shit.
(bill) As predicted, P bails on the conversation without putting forth any hypothesis and logic on how pm begins to exist, without an eternal god as the first cause. P was asked numerous times to give his hypothesis on the origins of atheism but of coarse rather then taking the opportunity to put forth a case for his atheism he instead bails on the whole conversation, after all this time. Just because I wanted a hypothesis for the basis of materialistic universe without a eternal creator as the first cause? P just flat refused to address that question and then said he was bailing on the whole conversation? Why? Because I asked to hear in your words a hypothesis for a atheistic existence? I just figured since the "God did it" position was so lame and unimaginative that the atheist must have a strong case to rest on. After centuries of atheistic thought and time to hone a position I expect more then "we don't know". Even if it is just a hypothesis of yours, at this point I will except anything from you on the subject. But of coarse you will not give us your hypothesis, as predicted. I noticed every other atheist claimed up tight as well when asked for their hypothesis on the origin of the materialistic universe? I must say for a group who claim to be so educated in such areas the SFN crew was strangely silent on this one.
Alas dude finally pipes in to break the silence and he responds with:
"I want to know: How do you know that there was ever a time when physical matter didn't exist."
Are you kidding me? This is it? Well what do you know, just as I had predicted. Go back and read my original posts to this site and you will see that my position from day 1 was that the universe was either created or it was eternal. Those are your chooses now take your pick.
On the subject of origins for PM and life my position and the evidence I put forth is refereed to as lame and not very imaginative. I am told the same thing for the diversity we see in life and PM.
So of coarse with a chiding like that I am expecting the atheist to come out with both guns a blazen when I challenge him to give me the leading hypothesis on the origin of PM apart from the eternal first cause. Yes I understand that your official position remains "we don't know" but I expected more then that when I asked for you to just give me a hypothesis then. 95% of the atheist could not even give me a hypothetical atheistic universe. "I don't know:" The other 5% retorted to the default position of : "I want to know: How do you know that there was ever a time when physical matter didn't exist."
When pushed into a cornor they always revert back to the possibility of a eternial universe because that is all they have. The universe was either created or it is eternial, period.
So after centuries of thought and much time to hone a position the atheist goes with:
"we don't know"
and/or
"How do you know that there was ever a time when physical matter didn't exist"
as the biases and foundation for their position.
In all honesty, I thought the atheist would come with more then that, much more then that. After all atheism is supposed to be the thinking man's position. I must say those answers do not seem to require much thought.
dude: How do you know that there was ever a time when physical matter didn't exist
Bill: You don't really hold to that position and are willing to defend it are you?
dude: Well no.
Bill: Then why do you use it?
dude: Well it is a good smoke and mirrors distraction that will usually divert the conversation from where the pesky creationist is trying to take it. But in does not seem to be working on you Bill so I will dream up some more.
Look dude if you want to stick your head in the sand and continue you on your rant "How do you know that there was ever a time when physical matter didn't exist" then knock yourself out with all that. But the majority of your cohorts have faced the facts of reality and fully acknowledge the universe i.e. physical matter is not eternal. Hence the explosion in big bang cosmology starting in the 1950's and rolling on through today. The majority of people, living on plant earth, dude fully acknowledged the universe was not eternal hence the race was on to discover the mechanism behind the big bang. The atheistic scientists went into high gear to discover a mechanism that could cause and drive big bang cosmology, apart from an eternal being. The race is still being ran today and with the answers offered thus far by the SFN faithful it sounds like they have got no where in the last 50+ years.
Bill: Any progress yet from the past 50 years of studies on the origins of big bang?
95% of atheist: We still don't know.
5% of atheist: Bill how can you know for sure the universe has just not always been here and that it did not have a point in time where it began to exist? I realize that this flies in the face of cause and effect theory and that nobody, from planet earth, holds that position anymore, but besides that bill?
Normally I would just refer you to websites where people much smarter than I discuss such theories,
(bill) Yeah, well then I would just refer you to a website with people that are smarter then the people on your website. That makes for a real interesting conversation on a forum when people throw links around like they are water. *sigh*
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:32:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Actually, little invisible pink elephants (LIEs) as an explanation for the origin of life and PM is just as logical as your (god) explanation. Yet you dismiss it with a handwave. What does that tell you about your own logic?
I have heard the argument comparing god to invisible pink things before, but it has always rubbed me the wrong way. How can something be invisible and pink? HOW?!?
I have heard the argument comparing god to invisible pink things before, but it has always rubbed me the wrong way. How can something be invisible and pink? HOW?!?
(bill) Invisible just means you can't see it, it does not mean that the object does not exist. A black stealth bomber is invisible to radar. That does not mean the bomber does not exist, or that it is not black.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Just to set the record straight, Bill quote mined, so here is the rest of what I said:
quote:
Normally I would just refer you to websites where people much smarter than I discuss such theories, but that has already been done and you don't read them, so what's the friggin' point?
To which Bill deemed not worthy of a response. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:59:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Just to set the record straight, Bill quote mined, so here is the rest of what I said:
quote:
Normally I would just refer you to websites where people much smarter than I discuss such theories, but that has already been done and you don't read them, so what's the friggin' point?
To which Bill deemed not worthy of a response.
Just for the record, and as predicted, P failed to share one iota on his well thought out and very imaginative position on the origins of PM in his atheistic universe. Good jop P.... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Bill said:
quote:
Are you kidding me? This is it? Well what do you know, just as I had predicted. Go back and read my original posts to this site and you will see that my position from day 1 was that the universe was either created or it was eternal. Those are your chooses now take your pick.
So, basically, you don't know jack shit, you have no theory of your own, and to fill in your knowledge gap you drop in your deity.
Go back to your sandbox.
Let me offer you some advice from a dead man:
quote:
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Your infantile insistence that science must know all the answers to all the questions, right now, is almost ammusing.
Obviously we don't know all the answers.
Only insane religious zealots, like yourself, have the arrogance required to present such a claim.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/22/2006 10:54:37 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 11:16:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Bill said:
quote:
Are you kidding me? This is it? Well what do you know, just as I had predicted. Go back and read my original posts to this site and you will see that my position from day 1 was that the universe was either created or it was eternal. Those are your chooses now take your pick.
So, basically, you don't know jack shit, you have no theory of your own, and to fill in your knowledge gap you drop in your deity.
Go back to your sandbox.
Let me offer you some advice from a dead man:
quote:
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Your infantile insistence that science must know all the answers to all the questions, right now, is almost ammusing.
Obviously we don't know all the answers.
Only insane religious zealots, like yourself, have the arrogance required to present such a claim.
So, basically, you don't know jack shit, you have no theory of your own, and to fill in your knowledge gap you drop in your deity.
(bill)Umm, wrong dude. I have explained numerous amounts of time cause and effect theory. I have demonstrated that a eternal deity logically explains the existence of PM, complex life, and the diversity we see in the PM and life etc... etc... etc...
The atheist blows that up as lame and unimaginative based on his imaginative and un-lame theory regarding the existence of PM apart from any first cause, I would have assumed. When pressed to offer more on their worldview and the logic of their origins theory, or even to offer a hypothesis for that matter, they clam up tighter then Fort Knox and for once in the entire history and civilization of man they have nothing to say. When pressed even further finally you pipe in with:
"How can you know for sure the universe did not always exist"
So after a forum full of atheists are asked over and over for their best *hypothesis* on the origin of PM the best they can come up with to support their worldview is:
"prove the universe did not always exist Bill"
Their whole foundation for atheism relies on Bill proving that the universe is not eternal. How sad!....
Go back to your sandbox.
(bill) Why? I am sure I will just find you there with your head buried in it...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 11:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just for the record, and as predicted, P failed to share one iota on his well thought out and very imaginative position on the origins of PM in his atheistic universe. Good jop P....
Thanks Bill! www.google.com - knows more than your god - try it! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 11:24:01 [Permalink]
|
OK, this has gone on long enough. It is no longer about morality and has shifted instead to the origins of the universe. It has also run it's course.
If you want to continue the discussion on the origins of the universe, please start a new thread on the Astronomy board.
Thanks.
Moderator: Locked due to subject drift
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
