I'm still waiting for the necessity of a first cause and proof that the universe is finite. I also have yet to see how infinite regression does not prove the absurdity of the cir stance. If everything must have a cause then by extension no matter how far you go down the rabbit hole you still end up needing a new cause.
That is of course unless you make up a category that fits the criteria and insist that it must exist well because you can wave your hands at it a lot.
Ah, but there is a difference between saying "I believe there is no God" and "I don't believe YOUR claims about God". ("your" in this case isn't you personally, just a general reference to people who make claims)
I don't ever claim one doesn't exist, as the amount of proof required to make that statement is far beyond what we might have.
The only thing that makes one an atheist is simply the rejection of claims about god. It is NOT explicitly "there is no God".
Difference is subtle, but there.
Correct.
There are huge shades within theism as to what that thing is, as there is a lot of difference of opinion among atheists as to the "no god" question.
It is a simple definitional matter, the details... that is where it gets complicated.
Eyup.
Of course, causality requires time moving in a certain direction, which is arguably not evidenced either before the big bang.
Not only does "everything has to have a cause" bite the "god must be that cause" in the ass with the infinite regression, the statement is an unproven assumption in and of itself.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bi...oks/exodus/13/14 “In case your son should ask you later on, ‘What does this mean?’ then you should say to him, ‘With a mighty hand Jehovah brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.+ 15 When Phar′aoh stubbornly refused to send us away,+ Jehovah killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beast.+ That is why I am sacrificing to Jehovah all the firstborn males,* and I redeem every firstborn of my sons.’
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Did all the firstborn get killed by Jehovah or not?
What context am I missing here?
LOL I put jap on my UCLA application. Then when I got there I realized it wasn't a minority.
Don't try to excuse your lack of reading comprehension.
So your lack of reading comprehension extends to other people as well. Theist/atheist is a true dichotomy, because the words are direct antonyms. It's not like liberal/conservative. And dude, seriously read about the categorical imperative. It's not what you think it is.You define people as theists and atheists and then because you created said categories everything must fit in your box. Its categorically imperative due to how you have defined your categories. I invite you to read Beyond Good and Evil where Nietzsche ridicules your mode of thought quite extensively. He goes down a list of such dualist categorical imperatives such as -go figure- good and evil.
That was a loser opinion by you then, just as it is now. I said that the people had to pick how they defined "universe" and stick with it. It has to either be a complete set of everything that exists or merely this thing that we believe started with the Big Bang. The fact that they might be the same thing doesn't justify considering them the same, as they have completely different definitions. Essentially, their intensionality is different, even if their extensionality is the same.you can stamp your feet and insist that everything must fit into your two boxes but as with everything else you cannot prove without a doubt that everything must be that way. We can go back to open ended sets and proving a negative but I am betting that you will dissemble from that discussion once more. But, but, but "uni" means one. . . .
No, it's not. Look up what the that term means.Yeah naming the school you didn't go to was obviously not begging the question. . . . But you don't really care about all that right?
Thanks. No, my school doesn't matter. All you have to do is actually go to an Ivy, and you'll see that people don't really seem to care. It's just another school, and I usually only bring up my time there to talk about Philadelphia, hence me calling it "my college up in Philly". But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that.What a bag.
Ugh. No. I think I've thought this all through, so obviously I think people who disagree with me haven't. That's not just my approach; it's the approach of anyone who thinks they've reasoned something out. But my mind is open to being wrong and to other people disagreeing, hence why I said that it was fine for me to think others are being irrational and vice-versa.You not being able to think of another way doesn't mean that your limited capacity defines all possible knowledge. Doesn't matter if it is in regards to natural law or your dumbed down binary take on reality.
If you're waiting for those, you didn't retain anything from my constructive. The first was bulk of, and the second is hardly my contention.
I also have yet to see how infinite regression does not prove the absurdity of the cir stance. If everything must have a cause then by extension no matter how far you go down the rabbit hole you still end up needing a new cause.
I think you misunderstand what the term "categorical" means. It doesn't mean "put in categories." It means overarching, unconditional.That is of course unless you make up a category that fits the criteria and insist that it must exist well because you can wave your hands at it a lot.
Is "god belief" not the same as "belief about god" in your book?
I said two things on the matter. You only responded to one with a fallacy, and the other you're misconstruing. I said why I think intellectuals as a group lean toward atheism (essentially that empiricism helps people get passed religion, which makes people sort of sit in a godless state that they find so liberating that they stop thinking critically about the situation). Then I said why individuals who call themselves intellectuals lean toward atheism (that they want to seem smart and do what the other smart people are doing -- as many of their theist peers deny basic aspects of knowledge -- and that they stick with the empiricist train that led them out of religion far longer than they're supposed to).It's circular reasoning to say the reason a group does something is to identify with itself. The group is "intellectuals" and you didn't say an individual, you said "intellectuals".
We disagree on that, obviously. I'm explaining why I think my reasoning is the best, so I would think contrary reasoning is lacking. You feel the same, so you shouldn't find it shocking.Who's finished the process? Certainly not you nor any religion.
That's always been your misrepresentation of the situation. Lazy people will always cling to some authority instead of reason or investigation. You don't think there are atheists who don't know and don't care to know the first thing about how the beliefs they hold are justified? They just hide behind someone else's words like anyone else. Meanwhile, most early scientists were theists, who obviously didn't take their theism to mean there was no scientific investigation to be had. Your only response to that has been to claim that those thinkers were disguised atheists, but that merely begs the question. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate.But then you have to define what physical events led to something, and what caused the physical events. No where in the chain of causality can you say "but this magical being doesn't need to be caused, even though we established a rule that everything needs to be caused". With god, you just say "god did it" and when someone attempts to go deeper it's "dude, it's god, no one knows the mind of god". You thwart any further understanding after implying a god.
Eh, it only is an issue if people put god into the universe. If you assume that, then you've already got loads of problems with self-reference.
Of course it's unproven; otherwise, I'd believe my theism is a fact and wouldn't consider difference of opinion. But the assumption is undisputed, which is why it holds. Our entire pursuit of science depends on that assumption holding, so it's not just me who's riding on it.the statement is an unproven assumption in and of itself.
For someone that is supposedly trained in formal logic, you have a very poor understanding of zero and the null set as well as the mutability of dualities. Maybe the next time you repeat yourself it will start being valid. Wave those hands.
So your lack of reading comprehension extends to other people as well. Theist/atheist is a true dichotomy, because the words are direct antonyms. It's not like liberal/conservative. And dude, seriously read about the categorical imperative. It's not what you think it is.
That was a loser opinion by you then, just as it is now. I said that the people had to pick how they defined "universe" and stick with it. It has to either be a complete set of everything that exists or merely this thing that we believe started with the Big Bang. The fact that they might be the same thing doesn't justify considering them the same, as they have completely different definitions. Essentially, their intensionality is different, even if their extensionality is the same.
No, it's not. Look up what the that term means.
Thanks. No, my school doesn't matter. All you have to do is actually go to an Ivy, and you'll see that people don't really seem to care. It's just another school, and I usually only bring up my time there to talk about Philadelphia, hence me calling it "my college up in Philly". But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that.
Ugh. No. I think I've thought this all through, so obviously I think people who disagree with me haven't. That's not just my approach; it's the approach of anyone who thinks they've reasoned something out. But my mind is open to being wrong and to other people disagreeing, hence why I said that it was fine for me to think others are being irrational and vice-versa.
I called it a categorical imperative because the only proof of the reality of your duality is the dualistic terms you use to describe it. That doesn't make it true. That just makes it your rational construct. You don't seem to grasp the naunce.
I contend that the state of believing and not believing are not completely mutable like you try and force. It's lazy dumbed down thinking.
It is much the same as your attempts to shoehorn in 'universe' for what others consider reality. The absurdity of the technique is easy to see by trying to shoehorn such logic into quark theory or in comparison to other trinary logic conventions.
Your exchange with Uriel has been awesome. I especially liked the one where he said that you cannot just blanket dismiss like that but he would accept it because of your massive credentials. You don't care about it but he sure does, right? I imagine you guys think this is some new level of cleverness when it is really the same different day.
What it is, is the approach of someone that likes to act like they have all the answers when we know that not to be the case. You haven't even demonstrated that the universe is finite much less that a god exists in one. But by all means continue the mode 'you don't understand' routine again.
I don't think you have any idea what those mean. They don't apply here.
That is not what a categorical imperative is. Seriously, look the term up and stop being stupid about it.I called it a categorical imperative because the only proof of the reality of your duality is the dualistic terms you use to describe it. That doesn't make it true. That just makes it your rational construct. You don't seem to grasp the naunce.
No one cares what you contend. The words mean what they mean. Their extensions are complimentary sets: There is no crossover, and everything is in exactly one of the two categories. Theism means you believe that god exists. If that statement is not true for you, then you are atheistic.I contend that the state of believing and not believing are not completely mutable like you try and force. It's lazy dumbed down thinking.
Again, a whole bunch of terms that don't apply. You think 'reality' and 'universe' are different? How? By what you said, they necessarily enclose the same set, so they are the same.It is much the same as your attempts to shoehorn in 'universe' for what others consider reality. The absurdity of the technique is easy to see by trying to shoehorn such logic into quark theory or in comparison to other trinary logic conventions.
Try reading a little bit. The whole point of my exchange with Uriel is that he was coming off like a jerk trying to flex his intellect in lieu of actually engaging people's points. It's like you don't even understand what you see, man, seriously.Your exchange with Uriel has been awesome. I especially liked the one where he said that you cannot just blanket dismiss like that but he would accept it because of your massive credentials. You don't care about it but he sure does, right? I imagine you guys think this is some new level of cleverness when it is really the same different day.
Bro, you sound like an idiot. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I've said numerous times that I could be wrong. But I don't think I am, so I'm not going to pretend like it when discussing. You, on the other hand, can't read worth .What it is, is the approach of someone that likes to act like they have all the answers when we know that not to be the case.
Never said it was. Said that this thing we've been calling the universe for scientific purposes is finite, which is true. That's the entire point of the Big Bang theory.You haven't even demonstrated that the universe is finite
Didn't say he did.much less that a god exists in one.
Bro, just because I'm questioning your intelligence doesn't mean that I'm doing the same for everyone else. You've been obtuse and blatantly incorrect this whole time. No one's been agreeing with you because you're not making sense.But by all means continue the mode 'you don't understand' routine again.
Saying that the universe must enclose something no matter the semantics is still unsubstantiated self-assuming nonsense. For someone that is so obtuse, i have you pegged and waffling there still.
There is no objective reality to your rational construct. I get that you have your categorical imperative because of your use of a negation but what you don't get is the point I am making regarding that approach. Not everything fits in your box in a meaningful objective way because you can 'fit' everyone into your viewpoint. I still contend that there are multiple states that are distinct and have implications regarding the discussion at hand. Your dumbed down rational construct of the world as two groups of people remains nothing but that.
How about instead of saying i don't understand what a categorical imperative is, you demonstrate that you know what one is. You have zero credibility beyond bluster. But by all means continue trying to insult my intelligence as the core of your arguments, coward.
You said the universe was an infinite set. I said that what we've been calling the universe isn't. Stop being dumb.
Bruh...There is no objective reality to your rational construct. I get that you have your categorical imperative because of your use of a negation but what you don't get is the point I am making regarding that approach. Not everything fits in your box in a meaningful objective way because you can 'fit' everyone into your viewpoint. I still contend that there are multiple states that are distinct and have implications regarding the discussion at hand. Your dumbed down rational construct of the world as two groups of people remains nothing but that.
A categorical imperative is an overriding moral obligation that has to be generalizable to every cir stance. It's actually such an unimportant concept that Kant (the dude who came up with it) said that only one can exist, and that was essentially just the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with categories.How about instead of saying i don't understand what a categorical imperative is, you demonstrate that you know what one is. You have zero credibility beyond bluster. But by all means continue trying to insult my intelligence as the core of your arguments, coward.
Again, you come off as an idiot, especially since you've had ample opportunity to look up categorical imperative yourself by now. You also haven't demonstrated any knowledge of logical sets at all, or of any of the philosophical terms you've been using. Had you just left them out and made your argument in plain words, you'd have been much better off.
Why don't we all just get some boxing gloves and settle this like men?
Why don't we all just get some boxing gloves and settle this like men?
it. Old school then.
Against the ST pseudo intellectual fuzzybumpkins?Why don't we all just get some boxing gloves and settle this like men?
Then we would also have a pseudo pugilist.
Against the ST pseudo intellectual fuzzybumpkins?
Then we would also have a pseudo pugilist.
You seem to want to move freely in and out of being pedantically technical as it suits you. God belief is not the same as belief about god. It's the same as belief in a god, not about a god. Belief about a god already entails believing in a god.
How do you know what people think? How is concluding a god exists anything close to critical thinking? From what, it not empiricism, do you draw your conclusions? What do you mean "supposed to"? Who's the authority on that?I said two things on the matter. You only responded to one with a fallacy, and the other you're misconstruing. I said why I think intellectuals as a group lean toward atheism (essentially that empiricism helps people get passed religion, which makes people sort of sit in a godless state that they find so liberating that they stop thinking critically about the situation). Then I said why individuals who call themselves intellectuals lean toward atheism (that they want to seem smart and do what the other smart people are doing -- as many of their theist peers deny basic aspects of knowledge -- and that they stick with the empiricist train that led them out of religion far longer than they're supposed to).
Now you are telling me how I feel.We disagree on that, obviously. I'm explaining why I think my reasoning is the best, so I would think contrary reasoning is lacking. You feel the same, so you shouldn't find it shocking.
True atheists, those who are literally free from the bull of religion, actually don't know or care to know about how beliefs are justified. They see no reason to believe something that's obviously bull . That might sound simple, but it's just an economical way of saying what you're saying. You say you can fly, prove it. Can't prove it? Then you're full of . That's called common sense and you don't need a degree in philosophy to understand it.That's always been your misrepresentation of the situation. Lazy people will always cling to some authority instead of reason or investigation. You don't think there are atheists who don't know and don't care to know the first thing about how the beliefs they hold are justified? They just hide behind someone else's words like anyone else. Meanwhile, most early scientists were theists, who obviously didn't take their theism to mean there was no scientific investigation to be had. Your only response to that has been to claim that those thinkers were disguised atheists, but that merely begs the question. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate.
How would you know? Isn't most of this flying over your head?
I just like to be technical when it comes to clarifying something. I meant 'god belief' and not 'beliefs about god' then. I meant to ask about what you were saying, not about a different concept.
I gave my theories. If I knew what people thought for sure, I wouldn't be calling them theories.How do you know what people think? How is concluding a god exists anything close to critical thinking?
Reason. That's where most metaphysical beliefs come from. In fact, you've been appealing to reason as much as I have. You've just been stuck on one argument.From what, it not empiricism, do you draw your conclusions? What do you mean "supposed to"? Who's the authority on that?
You have said numerous times that theists fail to think critically. Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth.Now you are telling me how I feel.
That's an ignorant statement. Science is a method to justify beliefs. Of course atheists should care about justifying their beliefs; that is how we progress intellectually.True atheists, those who are literally free from the bull of religion, actually don't know or care to know about how beliefs are justified. They see no reason to believe something that's obviously bull . That might sound simple, but it's just an economical way of saying what you're saying. You say you can fly, prove it. Can't prove it? Then you're full of . That's called common sense and you don't need a degree in philosophy to understand it.
There are people who sit there an just spout off things like "Big Bang" and "evolution" without having the slightest ideas about why they believe those theories. Those people aren't any better at critical thinking than people who take the bible literally. Anyone who simply leaves knowledge up to an authority is foolish, not matter what beliefs they hold.
This is true, and SBM has made this statement many times on here yet others don't "get" it.
Go figure!
Which is whenever you see an opening to be pedantic and wave your philosophy flag.
What would you be calling them, laws?I gave my theories. If I knew what people thought for sure, I wouldn't be calling them theories.
It's just reason that's based on ego, laziness, wishful thinking and impatience. I could just shout out a number and say it's the answer and that I am just waiting for the question, which is what the god answer does. You don't even know the question yet you still have the answer.Reason. That's where most metaphysical beliefs come from. In fact, you've been appealing to reason as much as I have. You've just been stuck on one argument.
By default theists lack the ability to think critically. It's shown time and again in the leadership of theists in debates and in the general every day goings on in the world.You have said numerous times that theists fail to think critically. Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth.
Science is a method of discovery. Do you think discoveries of an accidental nature in science are about justifying beliefs? If not, did science fail? You seem to have spent more time discussing philosophy than science, which is odd because what we know in science we once discussed in philosophy, yet you somehow think science is overrated.That's an ignorant statement. Science is a method to justify beliefs. Of course atheists should care about justifying their beliefs; that is how we progress intellectually.
There are people who eat their own feces. Can we use those as an example?There are people who sit there an just spout off things like "Big Bang" and "evolution" without having the slightest ideas about why they believe those theories. Those people aren't any better at critical thinking than people who take the bible literally. Anyone who simply leaves knowledge up to an authority is foolish, not matter what beliefs they hold.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
